REPORT OF THE SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL

Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel in respect of a 12th Century manuscript now in the possession of the British Library.—[Vernon Coaker.]

Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Service

Jeffrey M Donaldson: If he will abolish the 50:50 recruitment policy for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Iris Robinson: If he will make a statement on 50:50 recruiting to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Ian Pearson: In 1998, when the Patten Commission was conducting its investigation, only 8.3 per cent. of regular officers were from the Roman Catholic community. As of 1 March, that figure stands at 17.18 per cent., with 1,733 recruits having been selected for appointment on a 50:50 basis. Our goal is to increase Catholic representation to 30 per cent. by 2010–11, the date that Patten envisaged was adequate in achieving that aim. I am pleased to say that we are very much on target to achieve that goal.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Minister should be aware, however, that the 50:50 recruitment policy is discriminatory. Some 80 per cent. of applicants from the Roman Catholic community are successful; only 25 per cent. of applicants from the Protestant community are successful. The people I represent want more police officers on the streets. It matters not to them whether those officers are Protestant or Roman Catholic or of some other faith. What matters is that we recruit the best police officers to do the job—to tackle crime, terrorism, paramilitarism and all the other evils that confront our society. I welcome the increase in Roman Catholic recruitment to the PSNI, but is it not time for the Government to scrap this discrimination against the Protestant community?

Ian Pearson: I acknowledge that 50:50 recruitment is discriminatory. Indeed, Parliament acknowledged that when it passed the measure. It is an exceptional means of addressing an exceptional problem, and the Government strongly believe that these temporary provisions are justified to rectify an acute historical imbalance in the composition of the police force in Northern Ireland.

Iris Robinson: Is the Minister aware of the massive amount of taxpayers' money being used in the recruitment process? Leaving aside the appalling discrimination that young Protestant candidates face—they see less qualified Roman Catholics gaining posts in the service, for which they are refused—does he agree that those highly-qualified Protestants should automatically go into a central pool without having to go through the whole costly recruitment process?

Ian Pearson: First, costs are closely monitored by the Policing Board and by the Government. Let us be clear about the scale of what we are discussing: since 2001, there have been 44,000 applications from Catholics and Protestants to join the police force in Northern Ireland, so the PSNI is clearly a highly popular place to work. Our figures on discrimination against the Protestant community by the policy show that, to date, 440 people have been discriminated against. That is unfortunate for those concerned, but we have to address the acute problem of a historical imbalance in the police service in Northern Ireland. That is what we are doing through this policy.

Robert Walter: The 50:50 policy is about restoring trust and understanding between the two communities in Northern Ireland. Three years ago, the two Governments signed the international agreement on policing co-operation, allowing for exchanges and secondment. Will the Minister please tell me, three years on, how many members of the Garda Siochana have served in Northern Ireland and how many Northern Ireland policemen have served in the Republic?

Ian Pearson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman—I am not sure whether he is aware of this—that only last month the Garda Commissioner and the Chief Constable signed protocols on cross-border secondments. It is absolutely true that it has taken some time to get to this stage, but there is a commitment, north and south, to ensure that we have those secondments in place in the future.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am doing the parliamentary police scheme with the PSNI. Can the Minister explain to the House how the existing policy, which in broad-brush terms one supports, helps to advance candidates who are part of the Chinese community of Belfast or of the growing number of Asian communities, which are not primarily of the Christian faith? How are they advanced by being in the non-Catholic 50 per cent? I just do not understand how that is consistent with our obligations to promote in their interest. Explain and discuss.

Ian Pearson: Perhaps I had better not discuss it, Mr. Speaker, as I do not think that you would allow that. May I congratulate my hon. Friend on undertaking his work with the PSNI? I am sure that he will find it an extremely interesting experience. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is actively aware and adopting policies to ensure recruitment from ethnic minority communities. With regard to gender, the Policing Board has published a gender action plan, and currently, 36 per cent. of new applicants to the PSNI are women.

Lembit �pik: But the Minister has not answered the question. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has rightly pointed out, currently, the 50:50 arrangement operates on a Catholic, non-Catholic basis, and severely disadvantages ethnic minorities, as they are largely recruited from the non-Catholic 50 per cent. Does not the Minister accept that the PSNI needs more officers from ethnic minority backgrounds, especially given the increase in race crime? What will he do to ensure that those from ethnic minority backgrounds in Northern Ireland are not necessarily discriminated against by the system that he has introduced to try to broaden the cross-section of the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

Ian Pearson: First, the House has debated the 50:50 policy, Parliament supports it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) supports it in broad-brush terms, as he said. We must ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has proper procedures and processes in place to encourage applicants from ethnic minorities. I believe that it has done so, and is taking action in that area. The 50:50 policy is important overall, but I agree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) when he says that he wants a police service that reflects the broad community in Northern Ireland and that it is not just a question of Protestant and Catholic. His concerns are being addressed.

Helen Jackson: May I take the opportunity to welcome the increased numbers of individuals from the nationalist communities who are seeking to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland? May I suggest to the Minister that the courageous and brave approach of some women in those republican communities might help to boost the number of Catholics joining the PSNI and help to achieve normality in that area?

Ian Pearson: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. The statements made by the McCartney family have been truly courageous and extraordinary and are very important for Northern Ireland politics. We are on target to meet what Patten envisaged in terms of having 30 per cent. representation from the Catholic community in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That is important as a Government policy. I am also pleased that we are seeing so many applicants from both the Protestant and Catholic communities who want to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that that will continue in future recruitment competitions.

Devolved Government

Andrew Hunter: What measures he proposes to take to assist the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the prospects of the Northern Ireland Assembly reconvening.

Paul Murphy: The Government's ultimate goal remains the restoration of an inclusive power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland. However, recent events have undermined the trust and confidence necessary to achieve that objective. While criminal activity continues to hamper the progress made towards devolved government, we are continuing to explore ways of moving the process forward.

Andrew Hunter: Does the Secretary of State accept that inclusivity is no longer on the agenda, that the provisional republican movement remains the criminal and terrorist organisation that it always has been and that it should be marginalised? It is now time to move forward and restore devolved government in the Province with the minimum further delay, involving all parties, nationalist and Unionist, which are genuinely and exclusively committed to the principles and practice of democracy.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right that the prospect of an Executive as envisaged by the Good Friday agreement, which involves all parties including Sinn Fein, is unrealistic at the moment because the issue of criminal activity must be resolved. Until that issue is resolved, we will be unable to have such an Executive. In the meantime, however, if he is suggesting a voluntary coalition including nationalists and Unionists, he of course understands that the Executive must encompass both communities. He will therefore have to persuade my hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Labour party to join such a coalition.
	Parties have made other suggestions, including the SDLP's suggestion of a restored Assembly with civic administrators running the Departments. The Prime Minister and I have made it absolutely clear that we are willing to consider those suggestions as temporary measures, although, as I have said, we still need to resolve the issue of criminality on the part of the IRA. That is the obstruction to the process at the moment.

Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State says that that is the obstruction at the moment, but it has been the obstruction ever since this arrangement was made. The   McCartney sisters' bravery has highlighted the problem, but the IRA has never stopped being active. It has murdered people and maimed people. Is it not time to recognise members of the IRA for what they are? They are not constitutional politicians; they are murderers.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the campaigning work of the McCartney family over the past few weeks, which I thought was particularly significant last week in the United States. He is right to say that activity has been ongoing since the signing of the Belfast agreement, and that we have now reached a point at which we can no longer tolerate the IRA's criminal activities and the presence of Sinn Fein on the Executive. A crucial decision must now be made by the IRA: I entirely agree with that.

Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State has often spoken here about the need to restore trust as a prelude to political progress. Does he accept that there has been a gross betrayal of trust by the Government in their failure to implement the Cory report in respect of the Finucane case? The same Lord Cory in whom the Government must have had 100 per cent. confidence, or they would not have appointed him, says of the Inquiries Bill:
	It seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible . . . I cannot contemplate any self-respecting . . . judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed act.
	Does that not constitute a betrayal of the pledge made at Weston Park and subsequently that the Cory report would be fully endorsed by the Government?

Paul Murphy: I do not think so. My hon. Friend should bear in mind what has happened over the past few weeks, and what will happen in the weeks to come. Three of the four inquiries promised at Weston Park, those relating to Nelson, Wright and Hamill, will soon be up and running. As for the Finucane inquiry, Lord Justice Cory himself said in his report that he could envisage circumstances in which some of that material could be dealt with only in private. As my hon. Friend knows, the Inquiries Bill will provide an opportunity for material of national-security significance to be considered in private by a genuinely independent inquiry, whose members will be able to call witnesses and call for evidence in a way that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 also allows.
	I do not think for a second that we are not following the Cory recommendation. I hope that there will be an inquiry that will be independent, will have full powers, and will eventually get to the truth of the matter.

Nick Palmer: I hope that the Secretary of State will not accept the proposal from the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that we should move away from inclusivity. We have been here before, and every attempt to address the Northern Ireland issue by excluding people with unpleasantly extreme views has not dealt with the problem. Does the Secretary of State agree with that?

Paul Murphy: What I cannot do, and what no Government can do, is make people form a Government together. At the end of the day, an Executive can only be up and running if the necessary trust and confidence exist. When the Executive was there, we had that necessary trust, but it has now broken down. There is no trust and confidence because of this issue.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that our aim must be an inclusive Executive, because that is what people voted for in the Good Friday agreement and the referendum that followed. It is important to understand, however, that we are considering other ways of addressing the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland.

David Trimble: May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the comments of Dermot Ahern, the Irish Foreign Minister, who described Sinn Fein's proposals for a united Ireland as a red herring and the proposals of a snake oil salesman? May I also refer him to the comments of the Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, that the provisional movement was a threat to the democratic institutions of the Republic of Ireland? Would not it be a good idea for the Government to adopt the same candour, to display the same leadership and, instead of adopting the purely passive role outlined by the Secretary of State now with regard to alternative ways forward, to bring forward proposals to, for example, amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by the removal of the d'Hondt formula so as to free up the opportunity for the parties in Northern Ireland to find a way forward?

Paul Murphy: I do not think that there is any difference between what the Irish Government are saying and what we are saying with regard to Northern Ireland. Both are saying clearly that we cannot have an Executive as envisaged by the agreement until we resolve the issue of criminal activity by the IRA. We are absolutely at one on that. The right hon. Gentleman says that we ought to have plans drawn up and that we might have to propose legislation to address the democratic deficit and arrive at an alternative system, and I am more than happy to do that. But, as he knows, we can have as many plans and laws as possible in this House, but unless parties agree to work with each other and to have an Executive that includes nationalists and Unionists, that is impossible. However, as I have said, I am more than happy to look at all the alternatives and am currently doing so.

David Lidington: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments last week that he was not going to take part in any future negotiations or political discussions with Sinn Fein unless criminal activity by the IRA was finally addressed. Was he speaking for the whole of the Government in making that statement oras is widely believed in Northern Irelandare there people from the Prime Minister's office who, even in the last few weeks, have been engaging in precisely such discussions and negotiations with representatives of the Republican movement?

Paul Murphy: I have said more than once that talkswhether classified as discussions or negotiationsare not stopping, but that there is only one item on the agenda; how to address criminality by the IRA. Until we do that, there can be no further discussion or negotiations on taking any matters further.

David Lidington: Since making the message clear on crime was supposed to be the purpose of the Prime Minister's Chequers meeting with Sinn Fein, I cannot say that the Secretary of State's remarks on further discussions are encouraging. Surely there is a responsibility not only on Republicanshe and I are agreed on thatbut on the Government to accept that direct rule is with us for some time, that there is a profound democratic deficit in the operation of direct rule and that it is time for Ministers to come forward with options as to how that democratic deficit can be addressed and direct rule made more accountable to the people of Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman and in my reply to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I indicated that we were looking at different options for addressing the democratic deficit. But different parties have different views as to what the options should be. The key is to ensure that we can get agreement with the parties to get something up and running. People in Northern Ireland still see the main objective as ensuring that we stop the sort of activities that resulted in the murder of Robert McCartney and the robbery of the Northern bank.

Smoking Ban

Lady Hermon: What recent discussions he has had with the chief medical officer in relation to the introduction of a smoking ban in enclosed public spaces in Northern Ireland.

Angela Smith: There have been no recent discussions with the chief medical officer on this subject as, on 21 December 2004, I launched the Department of Health social services and public safety regional strategy, entitled A Healthier Future: A Twenty Year Vision for Health and Well Being in Northern Ireland. This includes a consultation on the three options for strengthening existing controls, including a ban on tobacco use in enclosed public places and workplaces. I will discuss the outcome of this consultation with the chief medical officer.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, although I am disappointed with it. Can she explain precisely why the Northern Ireland Office has shilly-shallied for so long over the introduction of a smoking ban in enclosed public spaces in Northern Ireland?

Angela Smith: As a Minister who has been criticised for not consulting on another issue, I think it entirely appropriate that we should consult the people of Northern Ireland on this one. That is not to say that nothing has been done in the meantime. Some 5.5 million has been spent on public information and on the tobacco action plan. I would offer one word of caution, however. If a smoking ban goes ahead, that does not mean the end of the issue. The tobacco action plan must progress to ensure that smoking is reduced wherever people happen to be smoking.

Kevin Brennan: At the recent British-Irish inter-parliamentary body meeting in Bundoran, County Donegal, some of us conducted informal research into this issue in Brennan's bar. Its proprietors said that the ban was working very well in the Republicthey are close to the Northern Ireland borderand was welcomed by customers. Could we not introduce the same thing in Northern Ireland?

Angela Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his diligence in undertaking such research in that bar. The consultation period ends on 25 March, and I will then be able further to consult my officials on the way forward.

Security Situation

Ann Winterton: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Ian Pearson: The overall security situation is relatively quiet. Last year saw the lowest number of murders since 1969. The number of paramilitary-style attacks has fallen, but paramilitary organisations on both sides continue to engage in attacks on, and intimidation of, their own communities.

Ann Winterton: But does the Minister agree that there can be no lasting peace and security in the Province until Sinn Fein-IRA decommission not just some but all their weapons, and such decommissioning is verified? Will he give a commitment to the House that Sinn Fein-IRA will not be admitted to the democratic process or to the Administration of Northern Ireland until all their weapons have been handed over?

Ian Pearson: The hon. Lady will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to say on Sinn Fein and the IRA. She is right to highlight the importance of decommissioning, but it is not just about that; it is about giving up paramilitary activity and giving up criminality. We need to see an end to all these if we are going to make progress.

Roy Beggs: Given last week's warning from the security services to British businesses about the possibility of terror attacks from Republican sources, and given the menacing threat from Martin McGuinness to the McCartney family, is it reasonable for law-abiding citizens to assume that the IRA's ceasefire has broken down and that its criminality continues? What are the Government going to do about it?

Ian Pearson: The Chief Constable's assessment is still that the Provisional IRA is on ceasefire. There is, howeverand has been for some timea threat from dissident republicans both in Northern Ireland and, potentially, across the water. That is one reason why the decisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers were taken last week. The important thing to stress is that this Government will not take any risks with the safety of the public of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we will implement whatever measures are necessary to ensure that we protect our citizens.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister accept that there is an increasing security threat against former members of the security forces in Northern Ireland? Indeed, the police have visited a number of my constituents within the past 10 days to indicate that the Provisional IRA is carrying out threat assessments on them, as ex-members of the security forces. Will the Minister consult the Chief Constable to ensure that the police take action against the Provisional IRA?

Ian Pearson: I meet the Chief Constable on a regular basis and we discuss a wide range of security matters. I am certainly aware of the potentially increased threat to some members of the security forces. There is a system of threat assessment and we talk to the police about these problems. I am convinced that robust procedures are in place, and they will continue.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Parmjit Gill: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 March.

John Prescott: rose

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

John Prescott: How kind.
	I have been asked to reply. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the European Counciland I am certainly grateful for the good wishes that he has sent me for today.

Parmjit Gill: Given the anxiety and concern expressed in Leicester by Muslim leaders, including the distinguished Ibrahim Natalia, president of the Masjid Umar mosque in my constituency, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety was right to express the view that Muslims should expect to be targeted by the police when they exercise powers under the new terrorism legislation? Will he take this opportunity to dissociate himself from that Minister's ill-judged comments?

John Prescott: That is an unfair representation of what the Minister said, and I do not believe that it is helpful for the hon. Gentleman to make such remarksand this may well be the last occasion on which he is able to make them.

Laura Moffatt: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the Crawley branch of the Burma Star Association, which, in the words of its chairman, Jim Ritchie, is going to pack it in gracefully? It has served the people of Crawley for many years, and its members offer help, advice and support for each other. It is based in a local authority that has the good sense to ensure that older people have free travel. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the association for its work over many years?

John Prescott: The whole House will want to send its best wishes to members of the Burma Star Association[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.]whether they are based in my hon. Friend's constituency or elsewhere, and thank them for the contribution that they make. I was fortunate enough to meet a number of its members on the 11 November poppy day ceremonies. They were very impressive as they talked about the difficulties from which they had suffered. It is right to provide these elderly people with council house assistance, council tax concessions, the pensioners' free bus pass and other benefits. We have recognised their contribution, but sadly, it will be greatly affected by the Opposition's policy of 35 billion cuts[Interruption.]

Michael Ancram: I do not know why the Deputy Prime Minister keeps parroting the failed Labour election campaignit is just about the only thing in the Labour party for which he is not responsible. Why did the Chancellor forget to mention in his Budget statement the fact that the 200 council tax rebate for pensioners applies for one year only?

John Prescott: For the simple reason that we are reviewing the council tax[Interruption.] The House should take into account the difficulties created for council tax by the poll tax, which was brought in by the previous Administration. That is why the present council tax is inadequate to deal with local government financing. The Government were right to set up the Lyons review to establish a fairer way of dealing with local tax problems than the income tax solution offered by the Liberal Democrats or the subsidies given by the Tory Administration.

Michael Ancram: The Red Book makes it absolutely clear that there is no provision for a further rebate after the first year. The Chancellor did not mention the fact that the 200 is for only one year, because with this Government, the give-aways come before the election and the takeaways come after. The proposal contrasts with our pledge of a year-on-year discount of up to 500 for millions of pensioners. It is quite clear that under this Government, typical council tax is heading for 2,000 a year. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that on 5 May, all pensioners should vote Conservative?

John Prescott: Not if they read the small print, which makes it clear that under a future Tory Administrationif the Opposition were ever to get into power, which I doubtmany pensioners would not get the benefits on offer. In some cases, pensioners under 65 would not be entitled to them, and there are other qualifications. Under the Government's proposals, between 2 million and 3 million pensioners will benefit. Moreover, the Tory proposals mean that the wealthier you are, the more you get: if you are poorer, you get less.

Ashok Kumar: Recently, I had a meeting with the mayor of Middlesbrough, Ray Mallon, who is a great friend of mine. He said that the support given by this Labour Government means that Middlesbrough is moving forward. That contrasts with what happened when the Opposition were in power. He also said that overall, crime in Middlesbrough had fallen by 20 per cent. under this Government. That is a great achievement, and is thanks to his leadership. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Ray Mallon on his great achievement for Middlesbrough? I invite him to come to Middlesbrough and see for himself.

John Prescott: Mr. Mallon, like every individual in every constituency, will have benefited from the increase in police numbers under this Government, and the introduction of community police. To be fair to him, he has congratulated the Government on giving him the support that he needed. So successful has he been that the leader of the Opposition went up to Middlesbrough to try to bathe in the glory of Labour's policies.

Menzies Campbell: In light of the fact that there has been no substantive progress on human rights, what is the Government's justification for supporting the lifting of the EU arms embargo on China?

John Prescott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that embargo is being discussed by EU Ministers at the meeting currently under way. The proposal has caused concern in America, and to some extent in Europe too. I think that good sense will prevail, and that agreement will be reached on lifting the embargo. No decision has yet been made on what remains a matter for discussionand I remind the House that it was this Government who brought in the advances on human rights.

Menzies Campbell: In the Government's human rights report of 2004, the Foreign Office expressed serious concern about basic human rights in China, quoting extensive use of the death penalty, torture and the detention of political dissidents. Given the nature of the regime, why should we lift the arms embargo, which was imposed after Tiananmen square?

John Prescott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes some very reasonable points, which are currently being discussed by European Foreign Ministers. We have to make a judgment, and strike an appropriate balance. There is no doubt that both Europe and America want better relations with China, and one of the conditions is that we talk about human rights as well as trade. China is emerging more and more into the world. Good progress is being made towards peaceful coexistence, and that contrasts with the tensions that exist when there is no dialogue with such countries.

John Hume: The enormous revolution in technology and telecommunications means that we are living in a smaller world today, and that we are in a better position to shape it. We are also in a better position to relieve the enormous poverty in those countries known as third-world countries. The Prime Minister will shortly take over the chair of the G8 nations, so will he take that opportunity to prioritise helping those countries? In particular, will he give substantial and regular support to international organisations such as Trocaire, whose staff are experts at dealing with terrible poverty? Every day, 24,000 people die because of poverty in those countries. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that helping them should be a priority for countries like ours?

John Prescott: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. We have been at the forefront of debt relief, helping to achieve the reduction of poverty in these countries, and the Commission for Africa is very much to the credit of this Government. I am proud to belong to a Government who have been making the running in these issues, and that compares and contrasts very much with the Tory Administration. We have doubled foreign aid; they halved it.

Andrew Selous: Leading Labour councillors were among the 17,000 local people in my constituency who signed a petition to the Commons asking for radical changes to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's plans to double the number of houses in South Bedfordshire. Will the Deputy Prime Minister come to South Bedfordshire to hear local people's concerns, given that his Department's plans will change the nature of South Bedfordshire for ever?

John Prescott: I have no doubt that even in South Bedfordshire there is a desire for housing, and that we are not building sufficient of it . Our challenge is to ensure that more houses are built. The real concern that I hear expressed by people is that we will be using up more green space, but the reality is that our policies have increased house building on brownfield sites from the previous Administration's 57 per cent. to 67 per cent. We have also increased the density in these areas, so that we are now going to build 200,000 more houses in the growth areas on less land than was envisaged in 1979. We are saving a land space equivalent to Oxford, which I think is a good move. We have houses, we use land more efficiently, and we use brownfield sites; that sounds to me like a good commonsense policy.

John Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the despicable conduct of the high street banks HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Alliance and Leicester, and the ATM companies Hanco and Cardpoint, in charging pensioners and people on benefit, as well as those in rural areas, for the use of ATMs? What will the Government do to ensure that those people, who have the least money, are looked after?

John Prescott: The problem mentioned by my hon. Friend is causing considerable concern, whether that is registered in the press, in discussion in the Government or by Members of the House. Many think that it is rather unfair that some of the charges are so high, and are creating difficulties. I believe that discussions are going on about that, and I hope that they can produce a better solution.

Michael Ancram: After eight years of Labour Government, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell me by how much violent crime has risen?

John Prescott: It is true that violent crime has increased[Hon. Members: Oh!] As has been said time and again from this Dispatch Box, the new recording system has meant that there is more recording of violent crime, but the crime survey statistics show that overall crime has fallen. That is very important, and it has happened because we have been able to provide more police officers and give the support and resources that would not be there under the Opposition's present policies of a 35 billion cut.

Michael Ancram: The figures that the Deputy Prime Minister is using exclude drug dealing, murder, business fraud, sexual offences, shoplifting and crimes against children. He reminds me of the mayor of Washington, who said that Washington would be one of the safest cities in the world if the statistics excluded murders. Let me tell the Deputy Prime Minister the reality: violent crime is up by 83 per cent. That is more rapes, more murders and more woundings. That is what real people are worried about.
	Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister another question. After eight years of Labour Government, how many school children play truant?

John Prescott: It is hard to jump from crime to truancy, but presumably that is the kind of jump that a Tory Administration would want to make. The right hon. and learned Gentleman still has to face the fact that under this Government crime has been reduced by 30 per cent., whereas it doubled under the previous Administration. That is the fact, and the reason why we have been able to do that is that we have provided more resources and more police, which has had the effect of cutting the incidence of crime.
	With regard to truancy in schools, we have improved investment in the education system. Our standards have increased, and we are dealing with truancy, although not as effectively as we hoped that we could.

Michael Ancram: Again, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. Let me tell him the reality. The figure is more than 1 million a year. The Government promised to cut truancy by one third; instead, it has increased by one third.
	Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister another question. After eight years of Labour Government, how many asylum seekers whose claims and appeals were rejected have managed to stay in the country?

John Prescott: Again, the number of applications from asylum seekers has fallen considerably, unlike when the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary. We are dealing with a difficult problem that we inherited from the last Conservative Administration and we are making progress. I only wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take into account the improvements under Labour: 2,200 more nurses and 381 more doctors and teachers. That is an improvement.
	To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he gave us some credit when he gave us this quote:
	Quite honestly I go to Germany now, and they say to me I wish we had your unemployment.
	Employment has increased by 180,000 since he made that statement. Are you thinking what we're thinking?

Michael Ancram: We always know that the right hon. Gentleman is blustering when he answers a different question from the one that was asked. The reality is that a quarter of a million failed asylum seekers have managed to stay in this country under this Government. What the Deputy Prime Minister demonstrated perfectly today is that this Government are completely out of touch with reality. Does he not understand that when it comes to crime, when it comes to truancy and when it comes to asylum, people feel totally let down by this Government, and can hardly wait for 5 May to send them packing?

John Prescott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we will be judged on crime. It has fallen by 30 per cent., but doubled under the Tories. Asylum applications have fallen, but were considerably higher under Labour[Laughter.] To put the record right for the penny scribblers in the Gallery, I mean that when the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary, asylum applications were far higher. We inherited a difficult problem, but the number of applications is much lower now.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman give credit to our policies? If people are to judge on 5 Maythe election will be on 5 May, will it not? [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have forgotten that it is the county council elections that will be on 5 May, when Labour and the Tories will be judged. He should talk to the shadow Chancellor, who conducted a survey on the success of the Labour GovernmentOliver's Survey Results. On the national health service he asked his constituents:
	How would you describe your recent experience of the National Health Service?
	The response was as follows: 31 per cent. said excellent, 42 per cent. said good, and 73 per cent. said the health service was a good service under a Labour Government. On reducing crime, good old Oliver's survey asked his constituents what they thought of
	CCTV as a crime fighting tool?
	Ninety-two per cent. said it was good. Let us have a record of what the people think, not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks.

Kevin Brennan: Runaway inflation, crumbling public services, record interest rates, negative equity, mass unemploymentis my right hon. Friend thinking what I'm thinking?

John Prescott: I am, and I am prepared to say that to the electorate. We said that we would get unemployment down, and we have created the highest level of employment in this country. We have put more resources into the public services. I am proud of that recordand that is what I am thinking. I only hope that that is what the shadow Chancellor is thinking when he praises our employment record.

Ian Taylor: It is just over three years since the tragic abduction and murder of Milly Dowler in my constituency. Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my admiration for Milly's mother, Sally Dowler, and the work that she is now doing to try to help young children protect themselves against such awful events? Will he also give credit to Surrey police, whose persistence in pursuing that as yet unsolved crime has been praised by Milly's parents and the rest of the community? Does he accept, however, that Surrey police is, per capita, the least well funded of all the police forces under this Government? Given the extra pressures on Surrey police, not only from the Milly Dowler affair but from other events, that funding is very unfair, and all the people of Surrey are extremely concerned about it.

John Prescott: The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the death of Milly. Our thoughts go to the parents at this moment and to the police, who have a very difficult job in such circumstancesas do all police forcesand we wish them well in dealing with those difficult matters. In fairness, it is true to say that the resources that we have given to the police authorities have increased considerably. I note what the chief constable is saying in Surrey, and one or two others are saying similar things. We are looking at that, but without a doubt the resources that we have given are considerable, whether for the numbers of police officers or for the support units. [Interruption.] There is always an argument about the resources, but under this Government it is about increased resources, not reduced resources.

Tony Cunningham: I have some fantastic Sure Start programmes in my constituency and some of the finest primary schools to be found anywhere. Every secondary school in my constituency has specialist school status, and we also have a brand-new further education college. However, we do not have a university. What progress is being made to realise the long-held dream of a university in west Cumbria?

John Prescott: I welcome the remarks made by my hon. Friend and I agree with them. As he knows, total Government expenditure on higher education will have increased from 5.8 billion to 9.5 billion by 200708I will not make the obvious point that he will not see that money if cuts of 35 billion are made. The important point that my hon. Friend makes is that university education should be available as much in rural areas as in urban areas. I recognised that when I was in Cornwall and the south-west, and helped to provide the resources for Cornwall university. The argument is similar to the one for my hon. Friend's constituency in west Cumbria, and to show our priorities, I am delighted to announce that my Office and the Department for Education and Skills will provided 21 million extra support for the excellent combined universities in the Cornwall project to enable it to expand. It is the same argument for the rural areas, and I hope that that shows the importance of it.

Alex Salmond: Given this Administration's expertise on weapons of mass destruction, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that if they are re-elected it would be the Government's intention in the next Parliament to take a decision on the replacement of the Trident missile system, at an estimated cost of 20,000 million?

John Prescott: There are clearly ongoing discussions about the replacement of weapons systems, as the hon. Gentleman knows. No decisions have been made, and no doubt there will be debates at the appropriate time on those very issues.

Jim Dobbin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the regeneration schemes in my constituency are having a beneficial impact on the quality of life of hardworking families? In Middleton in particular, the youth improvement programmethe YIP schemehas reduced levels of crime on the Langley estate. In Heywood, the new health connections building will be completed in 2007. That is a partnership between the new deal for communities and the local health set-up. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue with those programmes for the lifetime of the next Parliament?

John Prescott: I certainly can give my hon. Friend that assurance about Heywood health connections and the health centres, and something similar is occurring in all our constituencies at the moment. That is a reflection on the massive capital programme that we have in health, as well as education. I can also tell him that, as he well knows, our pathfinder programme has been successful in his constituency.
	Today, I have announced that another 60 million-odd will go into the pathfinder programmes in the other areas that I have announced before. To that extent, we think that those capital programmes are important; they are making a difference in jobs and the quality of life. I am bound to say, though, that certainly if we get the 35 billion in cuts from the Tories[Interruption.] The Opposition may complain, but in their James report, they advocate a 1 billion cut in the housing programme. In fact, a Conservative spokesman has said that all the proposed housing in the Thames gateway would be cancelled. They have no concern for housing programmes. They constantly tell us that they do not want those housesbut they should tell that to the people who do, and who want that quality of life.

Cheryl Gillan: With the underfunding of our health services in Buckinghamshire [Hon. Members: Oh!] Our funding is 18 per cent. less than the average. With the values of our pensions eroded, Travellers camped illegally, violent crime up and the Deputy Prime Minister's own plans to concrete over the south-east, which of the 66 tax rises imposed by the Government represents good value for money for my constituents? Can he name one?

John Prescott: The hon. Lady's judgment on this is as good as it was on the minimum wage. She said that it would cost an awful lot of jobs, we introduced it, and at the same time created an extra 1 million to 2 million jobs. Her judgment is wrong. I am looking at the figures for her area. If we are doing so badly and not putting in the money, why has she got 2,500 more nurses and 283 more doctors? Why is it that the number of people waiting more than nine months for operations has fallen from 146 to zero? Why are there 420 more teachers, 381 more teaching assistants, 4,160 police officers in the Thames valleya record numberand 48 community support officers? Why is unemployment down by 74 per cent. and youth unemployment down by 11 per cent? That sounds like a policy that is successful, not failing.

Mark Todd: Manufacturing jobs in South Derbyshire are booming. As the Deputy Prime Minister will know from having visited Toyota, it is recruiting additional staff this year. FIUK has just decided to locate there to manufacture body parts for cars. JCB has set up an engine plant in South Derbyshire. That is a credit to the stability of the national economy, the hard work of Labour councils and the ability of the local work force. However, one thing that we could do with, to add to that suite, is a further strengthening of the transport infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend commit himself to supporting the new road to Rolls-Royce's Sinfin site, as that would help to develop that area?

John Prescott: I recognise a lot of what my hon. Friend says, because I have visited the plant on a number of occasions. It is a very successful plant, but what impressed me most about it was the fact that many miners who had been thrown out of work by the previous Administration's programmes were now working in the car industry, and were proud to do so. In fact, unemployment has fallen yet again in that area. That is yet another example of why the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) could go to Germany and say:
	Quite honestly I go to Germany now, and they say to me I wish we had your unemployment.
	That is under this Labour Government: record employment, more people back to work and, curiously enough, more people paying tax, to the benefit of the community, instead of having to borrow to keep them on the dole. That is the difference in the policies.

Nick Harvey: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that South West Water's customers have the lowest incomes in the country, but pay by far the highest water bills, which are rising another 13 per cent. next month? Does he recall that a previous Labour Government legislated to equalise water changes nationally? Given that the Conservatives repealed that excellent Act, what will this Labour Government do now to address that mounting problem?

John Prescott: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the difference between our approach and that of the Conservatives. The privatisation of water has made the situation more difficult, and there are real problems in the south-west. One cannot consider the south-west's problems, and its population and tourism, without understanding the real difficulties with investment in the water industry. His proposal makes some sense, but it would cost a lot of money. Is his proposal another part of the sums that do not add up in the Liberals' policy?

Dari Taylor: Cleveland police in Stockton have established a project with licensees, known as the tranquillity project. Under the project, licensees pay a small amount to Cleveland police for extra policing and a direct telephone line. In the two months for which it has been operational, crimes of violence have been reduced by some 20 per cent. and the night-time economy has flourished. Would my right hon. Friend say that that is a model that other towns could easily follow?

John Prescott: Yes, I certainly could say that it is a model that we could follow. I might also say that we are now at 12.30 pm, and entering the tranquillity periodI hope.

Hon. Members: More!

Council Tax Capping

Nick Raynsford: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on council tax in 200506 and the action that the Government propose to take in response to those local authorities that have set excessive budgets.
	Figures released today confirm that the average council tax increase in England in 200506 will be 4.1 per cent. That is the lowest council tax increase in more than a decade, and the second lowest ever. The reason why council tax increases have come down markedly compared with previous years is twofold. First, the Government have provided another good settlement for local authorities, which was approved by the House on 2 February. For the third year in succession, all authorities will receive a grant increase in line with or above inflation in 200506, and many will receive substantially more. The average formula grant increase from Government is 5.6 per cent. Adding in specific grants to authorities takes the increase up to 6.3 per cent. We have increased funding for local government by 33 per cent. in real terms since 1997, which is in stark contrast to a 7 per cent. reduction in the four years up to 1997.
	Secondly, the Government's judicious use of their capping powers has shown how seriously we view the need to protect council tax payers against excessive increases. In 200405, when we made it clear that we were prepared to use our reserve capping powers for the first time, the average increase in council tax dropped from 12.9 per cent. to 5.9 per cent. The 200506 increase has come down even further, to 4.1 per cent.
	Given our substantial investment in local government and the scope for efficiency gains, we gave a clear message to all authorities about council tax in 200506. We said that we expected to see an average increase of less than 5 per cent. I set that out in a letter to all local authority leaders on 9 December. At the same time, I informed them that we were once again prepared to use our capping powers to deal with excessive increases. I later wrote to the individual authorities which, despite our warnings, were reported as proposing high increases. We informed them that the 200405 capping principles should not be considered a benchmark for 200506, thus making it quite clear that we were prepared to take even tougher capping action than we did in 200405.
	I am pleased to say that the vast majority of authorities have responded positively to the Government's strong message on council tax. That is borne out by the fact that we now have the lowest increase in more than a decade. I congratulate all those authorities. I know that most authorities are taking seriously the need to minimise demands on their council tax payers. However, there remain a small number of authorities that have set excessive budget and council tax increases, which is why I am again this year making a statement to the House about the action that we propose to take against authorities whose budget requirements are excessive.
	I should like to remind hon. Members of the provisions of the capping legislation. In order to determine whether budgets are excessive, we must consider a comparison of the authority's budget requirement for 200506 with that of the previous year. The legislation also allows us to determine other principles such as increases in council tax. In 200405, we determined a range of budget and council tax principles for different categories of authority. This was in recognition of specific factors affecting those types of authority that year. I detailed the principles when I reported to the House on 29 April last year.
	For 200506, we made it clear that we were prepared to take tougher capping action than last time, and that the principles used in 200405 should not be taken as a benchmark. Our view is that authorities' 200506 budget requirements are excessive if they show an increase of more than 6 per cent. over their 200405 budget, and if their council tax has increased by more than 5.5 per cent. over the same period. These principles have been applied to all authorities.
	According to the principles that I have described, nine authorities have set excessive budgets for 200506. They  are Aylesbury Vale, Daventry, Hambleton, Huntingdonshire, Mid Bedfordshire, North Dorset, Runnymede, Sedgemoor and South Cambridgeshire. We are writing to these authorities today informing them of our decision to designate them with a view to capping them in year and notifying them of the maximum budget that we propose to set for each of them.
	The authorities now have 21 days in which to respond. We will carefully consider the information that we have required them to send us, along with any other representations they make, before we take final decisions. We can then either make an order to be approved by Parliament designating them at the level of the proposed maximum budget or another level, or we can withdraw the designation and nominate them instead.
	Hon. Members will recall that in 200405, we took capping action against 14 authorities. Six were designating for capping in year, and a further eight were nominated and set notional budgets for the purpose of future capping comparisons. I am pleased to say that none of the authorities against which we took capping action in 200405 has set an excessive budget in 200506. This, and the fact that the average council tax increase in 200506 is the lowest in a decade, shows that although we have used it only reluctantly, capping has been effective in restraining council tax increases.
	We would, of course, have preferred not to use our capping powers. We would not have had to take action if all local authorities had heeded our clear message about increases in 200506. However, we also have a duty to protect council tax payers from excessive increases, and we will continue to do so. The actions that we are taking represent a measured response.
	If anyone thought that the Government's capping action in 200405 was a one-off, they will surely now think again. The message that we are giving is loud and clear. High council tax increases are a thing of the past. The public will not tolerate excessive council tax increases either now or in years to comeand neither will the Government.

Eric Pickles: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me early sight of the statement. He has always been prompt in providing these things, and he has been customarily courteous.
	The statement comes exactly one month earlier than normala period that occupiers of the right hon. Gentleman's office usually have for quiet reflection on which authorities to use their powers on. This is perhaps the clearest indication that the House might be too preoccupied in late April to attend to a capping statement.
	I am sure that the statement would have benefited from more reflection by the right hon. Gentleman, but it speaks volumes about the Government's treatment of council tax. For eight years, they have wrung their hands and done nothing. They have watched council tax go through the roof and increase by more than 70 per cent., and they have seen a typical household bill exceed 100 a month. But now, 43 days before a general election, he has decided to do something and line up a few councils to face the guillotine, to demonstrate the firm hand of Government.
	This is not the firm hand of Governmentit is the slaughter of the innocents. This is a gesture to the country that the Government have noticed its painpain caused by this Government. We do not need to take Opposition Members' word for it: let us listen to the Audit Commission, which says that the increase in council tax is due to national pay awards, unfunded obligations and changes in grant funding. Above all, it is because the Government's favourite stealth tax is the council tax. Those authorities have one thing in common: all charge a council tax that is well below that paid by the Prime Minister's, the Deputy Prime Minister's or the Minister's own constituents.
	Let us look briefly at one or two of those councils. Daventry had a council tax increase of 13.12. That figure remains 40 less than the neighbouring borough of Corby, which is run by Labour, and 10 per cent. of the increase came as a result of the withdrawal of the Government's housing subsidy. Let us look at Runnymede, which has the lowest council tax in Surrey; it is well below the Government's assumed, notional council tax figure, so the council is charging less than the Government think it should charge. The same applies to Aylesbury.
	Let us look at Huntingdonshire; its large council tax increase still results in a small council tax by comparison with neighbouring authorities. Huntingdonshire has the cheapest council tax of all district boroughs in Cambridgeshire. Let us look at South Cambridgeshire, which has a council tax of 140. Last year, it set a zero increase and its council tax lagged significantly behind others. The new level of 140 makes South Cambridgeshire one of the cheapest districts in the county. The same applies to Hambleton, which has the lowest council tax in North Yorkshire. North Dorset's council tax is the cheapest in Dorset. What about the curious case of Sedgemoor? According to figures produced by that council, it is charging 107, not 119. If that is the case, those figures are well outside the capping criteria. I hope the Minister will look again at Sedgemoor, given his Department's tendency to get things wrong.
	Will the cost of billing be greater than the saving in each of those authorities? Why is it acceptable for high-costing Labour authorities to continue to squeeze pensioners and hard-working families when these councils are being capped? How many of these councils are spending below the Government's notional council tax? How many are spending below the average notional council tax? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to advise local government to follow the herd instinct and avoid low increases because otherwise it will be penalised in future years? He is penalising an authority that had a zero increase last year. If capping is to be based on only 6 per cent. of budget and 5.5 per cent. of tax, will he tell me how this is different from crude and universal capping, because it looks like crude and universal capping to me? How many of these authorities received grants above the average grant that he cited?
	Frankly, this show trial of a statement fools nobody. It is petty, vindictive and pointless. It does not penalise those who have caused these massive increases in council taxthe Governmentbut in 43 days' time, the electorate will get an opportunity to judge and to penalise. In 43 days' time, bring it on.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman appears to know that there is to be an election in 43 days' time[Interruption.] He will know that none of the counties are subject to my statement. I put it to him that there is a straightforward contradiction between what he said at the beginning of his speech and what he said throughout most of the rest of it. He attacked high council tax early in his speech, yet he spent the rest of it trying to excuse authorities that made high council tax increases. That is to display complete inconsistency.
	To turn to the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, there is no fixed or prescribed timetable, but most people in local government think it right that there should be certainty rather than a prolonged period of uncertainty. If he is right in his presumption about what might be happening in 43 days' time, I think most people in local government would like to know in advance, rather than having uncertainty hanging over them for a long period. Although I can understand that the authorities that will be subject to the capping regime that we have announced today may not welcome it, the general view in local government will be to welcome clarity on the issue.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the process as the slaughter of the innocents. That is a misuse of language. The overwhelming majority of local authorities kept their council tax down. They knew the Government's expectation. Only a small handful of authorities have not kept the tax down. All the authorities in today's announcement proposed council tax increases of more than 9 per cent., and one of them proposed an increase of 100 per cent. He cannot on the one hand attack high council tax increases, as he did, and then, on the other, try to exonerate or excuse authorities that increase their council tax by such amounts.
	On the hon. Gentleman's questions about specific authorities, he will know, as I made clear in my statement, that there is a 21-day period when we will listen carefully to any representations that any of those authorities want to make. We shall welcome representations as well as information from the authorities and we shall take that into account when we make our final decision.
	Finally, I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that all the authorities subject to the capping regime I have announced today received an increase in grant at least equal to and in many cases substantially above the rate of inflation. That did not happen when his party was in government. The Conservatives were only too pleased to cap authorities that had often received cuts in their grant from the Government. That is not the case with the Labour Government.

Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for his statement. He will know that the Liberal Democrats want to scrap council tax, not cap it. Will he explain what has changed his mind since his days in opposition, when he was so vehemently against capping? Will he also explain how capping relates to his 10-year vision of local government announced again today? How does it relate to his proposals on new localism, the so-called freedoms and flexibilities?
	Capping is a sign of the Government's failure on council tax, not their success. If the Chancellor's one-year-only council tax rebate was really so good, the Government would not be capping councils today. Will the Minister tell us whether capping will be retained if Labour is re-elected and introduces its policy on council tax revaluation? Does he agree with the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? In the House this month she said that a property tax must take into account changes in property values, thereby reconfirming that the Conservatives share Labour's position on council tax revaluation?
	On council tax rises this year, can the Minister confirm his Department's figures, which show that the lowest council tax rises this year were in Liberal Democrat-run councils? Can he also confirm that if we take a five-year average of council tax rises, by council and by political control, Liberal Democrat-run councils have constantly delivered the lowest rises? So I agree with him that it is a bit rich for Conservative-run councils to be bleating, when it is increasingly clear that Tory-run authorities cost people more. Does he think that is why the Conservatives are having to offer their rebate?
	Does the Minister agree that some of the councils being capped today, such as Tory-led North Dorset, and Hambleton, and Sedgmoor, have a poor reputation in their areas for inefficiency and the waste of council tax payers' money? Does he know that North Dorset council even budgeted for re-billing this year because it knew that its council tax rise was so high it was likely to be capped? Is not that the height of irresponsibility?
	The truth about council tax is that it is the most unfair tax in Britain. As the independent Audit Commission said, the council tax system is fundamentally flawed. The Minister knows that our policy will save the average household 450 a year. He knows that scrapping council tax would avoid the threat of revaluation. Surely, rather than one-off bribes and annual capping statements, it is time the Government dealt with the underlying problem and scrapped council tax altogether.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman says that he believes it right to replace council tax with a local income tax. People who have looked carefully at the Liberal Democrat proposals for a local income tax have concluded that they contain fundamental flaws. The Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which looked at this matter very carefully, said in its clear and unanimous report that the case for a local income tax was not remotely persuasive.
	I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that when he gives rather more attention to the detail and the impact of his proposals, he will realise the gross unfairness of what his party is proposing. He will also realise that hasty changes in local government financesuch as the poll taxusually lead to disaster, and I would advise him to think further before pushing ahead with a proposal that is, as the Select Committee said, not remotely persuasive.
	The hon. Gentleman asked why we had changed our view on capping. We were reluctant to cap, for reasons that he will well understand and that were spelled out in our discussions on the future of local government. However, we could not ignore a situation in which many local authorities were imposing wholly unreasonable council tax increases. Those increases averaged 12.9 per cent. two years ago. It is because this Government have shown that they are determined to cap only those authorities that have acted unreasonablywe have acted in a sensitive way, not in the blanket way that Conservatives didthat we have seen a dramatic reduction in the levels of council tax. I would have thought that all Members would welcome the average 4.1 per cent. increase this year, compared with the 12.9 per cent. of two years ago.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Liberal Democrat council tax levels, and I am pleased that there has been a significant reduction in them this year. Last year, the Liberal Democrats held the unenviable record of imposing the largest council tax increases, and I am glad that they have heeded the warnings and acted responsibly. I hope that, in future years, Conservative councils will do the same.

Andrew Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting such low settlements for council tax right across the countrythat is really good newsbut will he accept that the capping mechanism is generally pretty crude and inefficient? Does he agree that, when we know the outcome of the Lyons review on council tax this time next year, we should reform council tax to create a far fairer system? We should not then need, year in and year out, to use crude mechanisms such as capping or incur the problems associated with gearing, which discredit the system so much.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the success in getting the level of council tax down. I do not think that that would have been possible without judicious use of our reserve capping power, but I accept that our objective is to look further at the whole field of local government finance, and when we receive the report from Sir Michael Lyons, we will do that. We will certainly want to introduce proposals, following receipt of the Lyons inquiry recommendations on the future of local government finance, to ensure that high council tax increases become a thing of the past. No one wants to see high increases; we want to see value for money, and I am only sorry that we have had to take capping action because a handful of authorities this year have not heeded the warnings and have set unreasonably high budgets.

Alistair Burt: This afternoon, I am seeing a delegation from multiple sclerosis centres. They are lobbying against a 45 per cent. Government-imposed increase in the charges for inspection. However, the Government are stepping in to cap Mid Bedfordshire district council for a rise of 13.3 per cent., which equates to 1 a month from the 10th lowest-charging district authority in the country. Does the Minister not see how ridiculous and pathetic his use of power is, particularly when it is set against the 100 million bill that it still outstanding against the people of Bedfordshire as a result of the Government's incompetence in settling the Yarl's Wood dispute, which they caused? This is an authoritarian measure introduced by a bullying Government who have completely lost their sense of proportion. How do you sleep at night?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman sometimes goes a little bit over the top. If he looks at the background, he will understand that Mid Bedfordshire district council has, in previous years, maintained relatively low levels of council tax increase. I am sorry that this yearexceptionally, and despite all the warnings, which were absolutely clear cutit chose not to do so. That was not, however, because it did not receive a decent grant increase from the Government: it got an increase of 5.2 per cent. Many authorities that got lower grant increases have managed to keep their council tax levels down. He would serve his constituents better by reflecting on the unfair impact of large council tax increases from his council, and by urging the council to be more careful in its budgeting in future.

Tony McWalter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the service that he has done to local democracy with this statement. What these authorities have in common is that they are district authorities that propose low increases in the years in which they are up for re-election, and then ram it all on when there is a county council election and they are not faced with any accountability to the electorate. Is it not about time that this ruse was rumbled, and that proper levels of council tax were set year on year, so as to avoid these steep increases in certain years?

Nick Raynsford: I am afraid that there is a tendency for some local authorities to impose very varied increases in council tax, depending on whether they are facing the electorate. I believe, however, that the electorate are increasingly conscious of these devices, and that they will punish authorities that act in that way. However, we cannot stand aside, in a year in which there are no elections for those authorities, and allow them to impose unreasonable council tax increases. That is one of the factors that is relevant to capping. Our criteria were set out very clearly, they apply to all authorities, and all authorities were aware of them. It is only those authorities that failed to heed the criteria that have put themselves into a position of being subject to capping today.

Robert Walter: North Dorset district council has a council tax level of 79.50 for a band D taxpayer. The average for all districts across the country is 140. North Dorset's neighbouring local authority of Weymouth and Portland, in the Labour-held South Dorset constituency, has a council tax of 210. North Dorset is a well run authority, but it has to cope with the new burdens that have been imposed on it by central Government. However, it will still have the lowest council tax of any local authority in Dorset, even after the increase. We heard the sideswipe from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) earlier, but the Liberal Democrats on the council actually wanted a council tax increase of 19 per cent.

Nick Raynsford: The increase that North Dorset has proposed is, at 23 per cent., one of the highest this year. It is also out of line with what the council has proposed in previous years. Again, this increase is not being proposed because the council did not receive a good grant settlement: North Dorset received a 4 per cent. increase in grant from the Government, which was better than the average for district councils. If most district councils are able to budget prudently and avoid large council tax increases, I do not see why that should be impossible for North Dorset. As I have said, however, local authorities are free to make any case that they wish to make over the next 21 days, and I shall listen carefully to their representations before we reach our final decision.

Alan Whitehead: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his efforts to ensure that the vast majority of local authorities introduced moderate and reasonable council tax rises this year? Does he agree that part of his success is due to the availability of formula funding from his Department, which is enabling good settlements to be produced this year and, potentially, in the future? Has he reflected on the consequences for council tax rises, had that formula funding availability been frozen, perhaps for this year and next? Does he agree that it would have been very difficult, even for well run local authorities, to introduce moderate council tax settlements if that had happened?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters, and he has done his homework. He has rightly identified the appalling consequences that would flow from the freeze in local government grants that would follow from the policies of the Conservative party. It is of course blatant hypocrisy for the Conservatives to criticise the Governmentwho have increased grants to local authorities by 33 per cent. in real terms over the past eight yearswhen their own policies would lead to putting very serious pressure on local authorities, which would force them to impose large council tax increases. That is a measure of just how confused the Conservatives are.

Teddy Taylor: Southend council, which has one of the lowest rates in the country, has avoided capping only by imposing pretty savage spending cuts, so is the Minister willing to have another look at the scandalous situation that has been created by the Government alleging that the population in Southend has fallen by 18,000, or 18 per cent., on the basis of the census returns, although every other piece of evidence shows an increase, including, for example, the number of people on GP lists? Will he have a look at something that is unfair and obviously incorrect?

Nick Raynsford: We have had representations from a number of authorities on census matters. These, of course, are ultimately decisions for the Office for National Statistics, rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I am more than happy to pass on to the ONS concerns expressed about the validity of the census data. I give an undertaking to do that in respect of Southend. I hope the hon. Gentleman is pleased that Southend council, which was threatening large council tax increases, has moderated those increases. I am very pleased that it has. Consequently, it is not subject to today's capping announcement.

David Lidington: Can the Minister confirm that council tax in Aylesbury Vale is below the level assumed by the Government when they calculate their grant support to local authorities? Can he therefore explain the logic of seeking to cap a local authority at a level below that which the Government think is right for it to provide decent public services?

Nick Raynsford: It is three years since we made it absolutely clear that the formula that we use to distribute grant to local authorities makes no assumptions whatever about appropriate spending. That has been made crystal clear to authorities all over the country, and most of them understand it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relay that to his authority, if it is still labouring under the illusion that there is some notional level of spending that the Government expect. There is not.
	We give good grant settlements to all authorities, including Aylesbury Vale, and we expect all authorities to budget prudently and keep their council tax demand as low as possible. The criteria for capping relate not to the level of council tax but to the increase in budget and the increase in council tax this year. That is a statutory obligation. However, as with the other authorities, I make it quite clear that if Aylesbury Vale wants to make representations on my announcement today, I will of course consider them very carefully indeed during the next 21 days.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that Hambleton has one of the lowest council taxes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, the lowest in North Yorkshire, which represents prudent spending and value for money? It is also why my husband and I choose to live there. Will the Minister admit that Hambleton finds itself in this position because of fiddled funding from the Government's grants? Why has his Department seen fit to transfer to urban or non-rural councils resources that would otherwise have been budgeted for Hambleton district council?

Nick Raynsford: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has not done her figures very carefully. If she had, she would see that Hambleton district council has received good grant settlements over all recent years: a 4.4 per cent. increase in 20023; 3.3 per cent. in 200304; 4 per cent. in 200405; and 3.4 per cent. in 200506. Those are all increases above inflation, but this council has consistently increased council tax by large amounts12 per cent. in 200203; 10.7 per cent. in 200304; 9.7 per cent. in 200405; and 17.6 per cent. this year, against a shire district average of 4.5 per cent. She should be explaining to her constituents why her council sees the need to increase its council tax by several times the shire district average. I am afraid that her case is not convincing.

John Bercow: In light of the indefensible non-answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), why does not the Minister simply now acknowledge to the House what in his more reasonable moments he knows to be truenamely, that Aylesbury Vale district council is a moderate, prudent and responsible authority that simply seeks to sustain a decent network of services to local people in the face of a hostile Government, and that his decision to cap it while sparing all sorts of high-taxing Labour authorities that provide rotten services at rip-off prices will convince no one and represents merely a grotesque abuse of power on his part?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening very carefully, because I gave a detailed response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about the basis on which capping decisions are made. The principles are established.
	Looking again at the figures, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we see once again an authority that has had good grant increases from this Government over recent years: 6.4 per cent. in 200102; 4.5 per cent. in 200203; 12.5 per cent. in 200304; 3.8 per cent. in 200405; and 3.1 per cent. in 200506. All those increases are above inflation, yet the authority has felt a need to increase its council tax by double the shire district average. He should be talking to his authority about why it is so out of line with other shire districts. However, as I have said, we will listen to any representations that his council wishes to make.

Personal Statement

Jonathan Sayeed: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement, the content of which has been agreed with you.
	On 8 February, the third report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges was debated. I apologised to the House for the mistakes I made, but suggested that there were a few errors in the Committee's conclusions. At the request of the Clerk to the Committee, I amplified and evidenced my remarks.
	The Committee has rejected that evidence and has invited me to make a fuller apology by way of a personal statement. I therefore offer my unreserved apology in respect of my conduct and accept the findings of the Committee in respect of this and my improper use of Commons stationery.
	I also accept and unreservedly apologise for inadvertent but incorrect additional costs allowance claims. However it occurred, the responsibility is mine, and it has become apparent that I claimed for some items that I should not have, and did not claim for some items that were permissible. I will repay any discrepancy.
	For all these mistakes, I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Amendment)

Keith Vaz presented a Bill to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to establish a right of appeal in relation to the amount of compensation payable under section 133 of that Act and to make provision about the procedure for the assessment of such amounts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 April, and to be printed. [Bill 96].

Immigration Control (Balanced Migration)

Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable annual limits to be set on immigration; and for connected purposes.
	Since this Government came to power, net immigration has trebled. Over the last six years, it has averaged 157,000 a yearequivalent to two constituencies needing to be housed every year, mostly in southern England. The Government's own projections show that net immigration to this country will add more than 5 million people to the population by 2031.
	A year ago, I started looking into the Government's housing targets, which are a major issue in my constituency. I had no intention of getting involved in the immigration issue, until I discovered that the Deputy Prime Minister's housing targets are driven by the Home Secretary's immigration policy.
	The Government have tried to give the impression that the main reason, apart from smaller households, for building millions of extra houses is movement from the rest of the UK to the south of England. In fact, this accounts for less than a tenth of the population growth in southern England. The most important factor is net immigration from abroad, largely to London, which results in a roughly equivalent number of Londoners of all races moving out to the home counties.
	The Government have finally admitted that net immigration will account for one third of all the additional households in the decades to come. One third is a significant figure, because, as the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today, two thirds of his housing targets can be met on brownfield land, but one thirdthe same as the proportion of extra households resulting from net immigrationwill have to be built on greenfield sites.
	Such matters are of legitimate public concern, but I hope that we can all agree that most immigrants are decent, hard-working, law-abiding people who want to make a positive contribution to this country, just as British ethnic minorities already do. Indeed, as Conservatives, the Opposition particularly admire the enterprise and family values that they often exemplify. Therefore, why do we want to set a limit on the numbers of people coming into this country?
	I believe that some immigration enriches a country economically and culturally. Beyond a certain point, however, the benefits do not increase with numbers, whereas the costs donotably, the pressures on housing and land. That is why it is essential to set a limit on the number of people coming to live and work here, as my Bill will make possible.
	Immigration is to the economy what oil is to one's car. It is a lubricant, not a fuel. Lack of oil damages one's car. Stopping all immigration would damage the economy, but beyond a certain point, adding more does not make it go better. Unfortunately, the Government have been under the illusion that immigration is the fuel of economic growth and have put their foot on the accelerator.
	The policy of the previous Conservative Government, spelled out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Home Secretary, was
	To restrict severely the numbers coming to live permanently or to work in the United Kingdom.
	Like most people, I assumed that that remained the objective of this Government, too. I therefore thought that the large rise in immigration was simply because they had tried to control immigration but failed. In fact, my researches revealed that the Government have been trying to encourage immigration and have succeeded.
	I spell out the evidence for that in my pamphlet, which I published yesterday, and it is threefold. First, an official Home Office document admits that
	the government wants to encourage lawful migration into the country . . . sustaining and perhaps increasing current levels
	current levels that are already an all-time record. Secondly, the Government have written a letter to businessesI have a copy with meurging employers to bring in even low-skilled workers from outside Europe. Thirdly, they have relaxed the immigration rules in more than a dozen ways. As a result, the number entering on work permits, for example, has trebled and now dwarfs the number of asylum seekers granted refuge each year.
	The Government claim that mass immigration on that scale is economically essential. In fact, most economic experts disagree. The Government's favourite think-tank, the left-of-centre Institute for Public Policy Research, published a whole book on the subject, which concluded:
	There is not a compelling long-term case for increased immigration purely in terms of economic benefits.
	In the pamphlet that I published yesterday, I examine the arguments that the Government use to justify unlimited immigration. All of them have two things in common. If they were valid, they would indeed mean that we should encourage immigration without limit. They are not valid. They are based largely on economic sleight of hand.
	First, the Prime Minister confuses growth in the size of the economy with growth in our standard of living. More workers make the economy bigger, but that does not make the average worker any better off. It might make the rich richer by giving them cheap nannies and builders, but it makes the less well-off poorer by holding down the pay of resident nurses, teachers, catering workers and so on. That might be the reason that the Government's policy of unlimited immigration goes down well among the glitterati but is less popular with former Labour voters.
	Secondly, the Prime Minister says that we have half a million vacancies, so we need immigration to fill them. Since he started saying that, we have imported half a million workers, yet we still have half a million vacancies. The reason for that is that immigration does not reduce job vacancies, because migrants not only produce goods and services but consume them, which requires yet more workers to produce good and services, so we end up chasing our tail.
	Thirdly, the Prime Minister claims that we need foreign workers to pay for our pensions in the decades ahead. But immigrants grow old, too. They will become pensioners precisely when the demographic problem is most acute. A United Nations study showed that to maintain the current ratio between working age and retired people in Britain would require more than a million immigrants a year. The Government's pensions tsar, Adair Turner, remarked,
	You only have to look at these figures to realise that this scale of immigration is undesirable and impossible. Fortunately it is also unnecessary.
	There are types of immigration that are genuinely economically beneficial. In particular, international companies setting up new operations here often need to transfer staff with company-specific skills that they simply could not hire locally at any price. Those people might work here for a few years before typically returning home. Therefore, that does not result in a permanent increase in our population. Even if an annual limit were set such that there was a rough balance between those coming to work here and those returning or moving abroad, the flows in both directions would be measured in hundreds of thousands of people.
	We need to set an annual limit that allows that and other beneficial flows as well as accommodating our humanitarian obligations, and which brings a much better balance to our immigration policy. We can do so. We should do so. Above all, a clear limit would bring the transparency and openness that are essential if we are to rebuild public confidence in all communities about our immigration policy, after years of doing one thing while saying another. I urge the House to support my Bill.

Kevin McNamara: It had not been my intention to oppose the Bill, but having heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, there are too many questions that he has not answered, whether in relation to his pamphlet or the various sources on which he has called to support his arguments.
	First, in relation to setting an annual limit, the right hon. Gentleman has not defined in any way what the criteria should be in deciding on that limit. Nor has he said how, within that limit, we will judge between those who might be here temporarily or for whom we are satisfying requirements under the refugee conventions and in relation to other humanitarian matters. He has also suggested that, if we bring in more migrants, that will be self-defeating. It is a strange sort of policy whereby we can only bring in people who have enormous skills, without considering the other broader skills that are seen as necessary in our society.
	We need a proper migration policy. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting one that is not capable of sensible implementation, and that does not have strict criteria set down by which we can judge the proper course of action. On that basis, I oppose the Bill.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Lilley, SirSydney Chapman, Mr. John Horam, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Edward Leigh, Dame Marion Roe, Mrs.Gillian Shephard, Sir Michael Spicer and Mr. Andrew Turner.

Immigration Control (Balanced Migration)

Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to enable annual limits to be set on immigration; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May, and to be printed [Bill 98].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords]

[Relevant document: The Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill, HC 352-I of Session 200304, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6276.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Paul Goodman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.. Members who examine today's Order Paper will see the following sentence under the programme motion:
	Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th April 2005.
	The whole House will have heard the Deputy Prime Minister confirm today, at Prime Minister's Question Time, that the general election would take place on 5 May. As the Prime Minister has confirmed that, it would surely be impossible for the Standing Committee proceedings to finish on that date, because the House would have dissolved by then. Given your experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you offer us guidance on what to do next?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am aware, the date of the general election has not yet been officially announced. The motion is in order, and must be dealt with in the normal way.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill completes the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has ever seen. It fulfils our manifesto commitment to deliver enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people and represents a major landmark on the road to a world in which disabled people can be empowered to live independently, fully recognised and, indeed, respected as equal members of society.
	The Bill extends the definition of disability to provide protection against discrimination for at least another 175,000 people. It covers more people diagnosed with the progressive conditions HIV, multiple sclerosis and cancer and removes the requirement that mental illnesses be clinically well recognised. It closes gaps in the pre-existing legislation relating to, for example, the inclusion of local councillors, private clubs and transport services, and it extends the coverage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to almost all activities of the public sector, placing a duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, mainstreaming disability equality into the core business of the public sector as a whole and helping to eliminate the institutional disadvantage that many disabled people still face. Well over 40,000 public bodies will be covered by those duties in some way.
	For the first time, disabled people can be confident that their needs will be to the fore rather than being considered as an afterthought. For example, if a health trust is reorganising its services or a local authority is thinking of pedestrianising a town centre, it will need to think first about the way in which disabled people are likely to be affected.
	I want to do two things. First, I want to set this Bill and some of its specific measures in the wider context of our previous legislation and the delivery of our longer-term goal of equality and independence for disabled people, as set out in the Prime Minister's recent strategy unit report.

Paul Goodman: In the light of the speculation about the general election date, can the Secretary of State guarantee that the Bill will receive full Committee and Report stages?

Alan Johnson: I cannot guarantee anything that goes through the usual channels, but I am confident that it will. Given good will in all parts of the House, I see no reason for it not to be on the statute book by the time a general election is called, even if that happens earlier than some people expected.
	The second thing that I want to do is explain the Government's position on a number of specific issues in the Bill, which I hope will inform the debate and ensure the Bill's quick passage through the House.
	We have come a long way since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That is when Alf Morris, the first ever Minister for Disabled People, laid the foundations for disability rights legislation in the UK. When we came to office in 1997, despite 14 previous attempts to produce legislation, only the most blatant forms of direct discrimination against disabled people had been outlawed and there was no protection at all for disabled employees of small firms or for disabled pupils and students. The 1995 Act lounged on the statute book, falling far short of its potential and with no champion to help people enforce their rights or give employers advice and guidance on how to meet their obligations.

Tim Boswell: The Secretary of State is normally a most reasonable person. To set the record straight, will he acknowledge that the 1995 Act was described by the Equal Opportunities Review as
	the most important . . . legislation in a generation?

Alan Johnson: I will acknowledge that. It was. The trouble was that there was no effective system to ensure its enforcement. MoreoverI think the hon. Gentleman will accept this, because he too is a fair and reasonable personit did not go as far as the disability lobby wanted it to, or as far as Members throughout the House pursuing private Members' Bills wanted to take disability discrimination legislation. We have now created the champion that the 1995 Act needed, first through the work of the Disability Rights Task Force and then with the hugely successful Disability Rights Commission.

Angela Eagle: I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, and wish it to be sped on its way whenever the general election may occur. Did my right hon. Friend notice an under-reported part of the Budget, which gives 2 million disabled people free travel? Can he say how that welcome development might work in practice?

Alan Johnson: I agree that it was under-reported. Most of the focus was on free off-peak bus travel for people over 60 from April 2006. The statement, of course, included all disabled people. It is indeed a welcome development and another development that improves the whole position by empowering disabled people.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend mentioned the 1995 Act. One of the disappointing features of that Act was the length of the lead-in times. Had it not been for this Government's actions, part IIIpassed 10 years agowould still not be operation. We introduced Access to Goods and Services last year.

Alan Johnson: I think that it was on 1 October 2004 that that final part of the Act was passed. It was a red-letter day for all those interested in disability issues.
	We are working to ensure that the DRC's championing of disability remains at the core of the new commission for equality and human rights. We have also set about implementing the most profound extension of disability civil rights that the country has ever seen. In transport, buildings, education and access to goods and services, our legislative programme has strengthened, widened and deepened the original Disability Discrimination Act.
	In 1997, there were no rights of access for disabled people to public transport. We introduced accessibility regulations for rail vehicles in 1998, and for buses and coaches in 2000. From 1 March 2001, licensed taxi drivers have had a duty to carry guide dogs free of charge, and that duty was extended to all licensed private hire vehicle operators and drivers from 1 March last year. Accessibility regulations for taxis are also on the way.
	The Bill protects disabled passengers against discrimination for the first time, ending the anomaly of transport not counting as a service under the DDA. It also allows us to set an end date of 2020 for all rail vehicles to be subject to the accessibility regulations providing access for all disabled people. Replacing the vehicle stock to meet the legislation places a cost burden on the rail industry and it is important to strike the right balance between those costs and the need for accessibility.

Tim Loughton: Quite long lead-in times are given to rail companies. Are not most rail franchises let on a 10 or 15-year basis? The Secretary of State is allowing more than enough time for a replacement company to bid for a franchise, which should put it in a much better position to ensure that all its rolling stock is disability-compliant from day one.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's point has been raised in debate and by the Scrutiny Committee, but I was just coming to the way in which we see the balance working. It is not so much an issue of the franchises, but of the costs of replacing trains that have not yet reached the end of their proper working lives.
	We moved from our original proposal to introduce the deadline of 2025 to place 2020 in the Bill, and combined with moves to strengthen the monitoring and scrutiny of exemptions, we believe that we have got the balance right; and we welcome the recent endorsement of the approach by the DRC. This does not mean that everything stands still until 2020; indeed, by the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018, around 1,500 trains will have been made fully accessible.
	As with transport, we cannot tackle the legacy of buildings overnight, but we are making good progress. Improved building regulations have already made provision for more buildings to be accessible and usable by disabled people. The Bill goes further, in imposing a duty on landlords to make reasonable adjustments for disabled tenants and prospective tenants, short of physical changes to premises. Where the lease gives tenants a right to carry out alterations to residential premises with a landlord's consent, the landlord will not be able to withhold such consent unreasonably for alterations needed by a disabled person living in the premises.We have also agreed to review the position on changes to common parts of residential premises. Work on the review is already under way and we expect recommendations by the end of the year.
	In education, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is leading to innovative solutions. For example, at a school in Birmingham, a pupil who is registered blind accesses the whole curriculum with the help of a specially adapted keyboard. The world of learning has been opened for him. What is more, there is no extra work involved for the teacher apart from keeping the service provider abreast of teaching plans.
	With access to goods and services covered since October last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) mentioned, service providers such as shops, restaurants and leisure centres have had to take reasonable steps to tackle physical features that make access impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people.
	Last October also saw protection against discrimination extended to an additional 600,000 disabled workers, and 7 million jobs and 1 million employers were brought within the scope of the employment provisions of the DDA for the first time.
	Creating employment opportunity is a crucial part of supporting disabled people to fulfil their potential in society as a whole. But in addition to opening up job opportunities for disabled people, we believe that they need to have the skills and personal tailored support to fulfil their employment aspirations. Since 1997, through our investment in Jobcentre Plus and the new deal, we have begun to transform the welfare state from the passive one-size-fits-all inheritance to an active service that tailors help to the individual and enables people to acquire the skills and confidence to move from welfare to work.
	The new deal for disabled people has seen nearly 55,000 job entries since its launch in 2001, but our other new deal initiativesfor lone parents and young people for instancehave also been effective. Altogether, nearly 200,000 disabled people have been helped into work through our total package of new deal programmes, while the numbers claiming incapacity benefit fell by 22,000 in the year to November 2004.
	We are seeing remarkably encouraging early results from our pathways to work pilots, with the latest statistics showing that the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability has almost doubled compared with the same period last year.
	Our proposed reform of incapacity benefit builds on our investment in pathways to work, the new deal and Jobcentre Plus, seeking to enable the 1 million disabled people on benefits who want to work to fulfil their aspirations.

David Drew: I agree with what my right hon. Friend says, and he is very positive. But does he agree that there are particular problems for those who have mental health difficulties, inasmuch as we need to provide additional support? There is always a fear that things will go wrong for them and that they will be thrown back on to incapacity benefit. If we are to get people with mental health problems back into work, we will need to provide additional support.

Alan Johnson: I agree completely. I said last week that we will be publishing a Green Paper in the summer and I set out the four basic issues we would be looking at in terms of the input from everyone involved; the fourth was how we dealt with mental health problems. We have great experience already, from the 10 per cent. of the country that is covered by pathways to work, as to how we can deal with such fluctuating conditions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is one of the crucial issues that we need to solve in talking the project forward.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend is aware that I represent one of the pathways to work pilot areas where the Jobcentre Plus team has been very successful in getting people off incapacity benefit and back into work. I was at one of my local hospitals last week to talk to members of staff involved in the partnership work with Jobcentre Plus. It is clear that, across the board, there is a high level of job satisfaction and fulfilment for members of staff working with people on incapacity benefit through pathways to work. That is what they came into the job for, and I pass their thanks to him for the opportunity to do what they are there to do.

Alan Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, whose constituency I visited to see for myself the success of pathways to work. He referred earlier to a hidden part of the Budget. Another part of the Budget was the extension of the linking rules to 104 weeks, which will be crucial in helping peopleparticularly those with fluctuating mental health conditionsto take that all-important first step into work.

David Taylor: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on mental ill health, will the Secretary of State confirm the Government's attitude to Lord Skelmersdale's amendment, which I believe is now clause 18? An earlier amendment tabled by Lord Carter was resisted and failed, whereas Lord Skelmersdale's amendment was pressed to a Division and incorporated in the Bill, apparently against the Government's wishes. Is there any intent to amend that at any stage?

Alan Johnson: There will indeed be an attempt to amend it, and I will explain exactly why later.
	Improving the support for obtaining and retaining employment was a cornerstone of the Prime Minister's strategy unit report earlier this year. This set out an ambitious 20-year strategy to improve the life chances of disabled people by promoting independent living supported by individualised service delivery. But such a strategy can be successful only if it is built on the foundation of the enforceable and comprehensive civil rights that this Bill makes possible.
	I should like to set out the Government's position on three important elements of the Bill which I think will help to inform this afternoon's debatenamely, the definition of depression, the exclusion of some cancers and the effect on schools. A basic principle of the DDA is that it protects people who have, or are likely to have, long-term effects connected with their impairment.
	Businesses, especially 1 million small firms, are still getting to grips with last October's duties, so it would be inappropriate to make fundamental changes to this long-term definition of disability. In any event, a special provision for only some people with short-term conditions would be confusing and potentially unfair to people with other impairments. The DDA already enables people with recurring or fluctuating conditionsincluding depressionto meet the long-term definition of disability if there is a continuing underlying impairment. So we will seek to overturn the amendment made in the other place, but this is not the end of the road. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee asked the DRC to look at ways of progressing the social model of disability discrimination. We believe that this review is the right place to consider whether and how to cover short-term conditions, and we look forward to working with the DRC on this.

Paul Goodman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Will he acknowledge that the Joint Committee also wanted the cover for depression to be extendedalbeit, it is true, not exactly along the lines of Lord Skelmersdale's amendment?

Alan Johnson: I accept that. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knowshe was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committeewe have provided such an extension, but we have not gone to the lengths that some in the other place wanted. However, it is reasonable to use this review and the work being undertaken by the DRC to resolve some of the underlying problems raised in the other place.
	I turn to the second issue, which is cancers. The DDA already covers many people with cancer, and the Bill, by covering cancers from diagnosis, extends protection to an additional 145,000 people. In line with the original disability rights task force recommendation, it protects people with potentially long-term asymptomatic conditions who are likely to face stigma, not those with readily treatable, short-term conditions who are not to our knowledge experiencing any discrimination.
	We have however undertaken not to use regulation-making powers to exclude any readily treatable cancers from automatic coverage until we have reviewed the actual evidence of discrimination with the DRC, Macmillan Cancer Relief and others. We have also ensured that the regulations will receive the highest level of parliamentary scrutinyaffirmative procedureso that Parliament can hold the Government to account. The DRC has stated that
	this provides a sound way forward and there is no further amendment to the Bill required in this area.
	We welcome the DRC's support for our approach.
	Finally and crucially, I want to mention these measures' effect on schools. The general duty on the public sector to promote equality for disabled people is laid out clearly in the Bill. But the Bill also gives regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State that allow the placing of specific duties on prescribed bodies, in order to help those bodies to understand how the duty applies to their situation, and in order to require them to demonstrate that they have given strategic thought to the needs of disabled people.
	These are crucial provisions for addressing the thoughtlessness and institutional discrimination that have held back disabled people for too long. The general duty will apply across the public sector, and I want to ensure that key public bodies are subject to the specific duties, in order to help them to implement the general duty effectively when regulations are set out in the summer.
	Schools have an especially significant bearing on the life chances of disabled people, and they play a crucial role in combating prejudice and equipping disabled children with the qualifications and skills that they need to participate fully in society and to realise their true potential. There is still far too large a gap between the academic results of disabled people and those of their non-disabled peers. In 2003, 24 per cent. of disabled people aged 16 to 24 had no qualifications whatsoever, compared with 13 per cent. of non-disabled people of the same age. But it is important to ensure that any extra requirements that we place on schools are proportionate. We have learned lessons from the experience of the duty to promote race equality, and this Bill will give rise to a far less bureaucratic regime.
	So we are clear that any regulations must apply sufficiently flexibly to schools. They must avoid requiring schools to produce unnecessary paperwork, instead allowing them to fulfil any duty by using existing mechanismssuch as their annual reportto demonstrate that they are thinking about how they serve disabled people. We will need to tailor regulations to achieve this, and to listen carefully to the schools themselves. But I am also clear that schools cannot simply be exempt from these duties. Failing to find a way to include schools would not just mean that we had failed to deliver full civil rights; it would fundamentally weaken our longer-term ability to achieve the step change in public attitudes that is so crucial to delivering our longer-term vision of a society of equal rights and opportunities for all.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. He and I share a common interest in schools, as former education Ministers. I am pleased that he has confirmed that this duty will apply, and that he is trying to think of lateral ways to discharge it without excessive cost. Have he or his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills assessed the likely unit cost to schools of any such regime, in order to ensure that it is bearable?

Alan Johnson: We have not taken our discussions that far, but the single conversation taking place in education is the natural place to deal with such matters. However, I can inform the House that schools in England and Wales will be listed as bodies with specific duties to promote disability equality.
	I believe that, in years to come, the mistreatment of disabled people that was typical of the last centuryand which is still too often the case todaywill be seen as the affront to humanity that it is.

Tom Levitt: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, I want to put on the recordon behalf, I hope, of several Members currently in the Chamberthat it was a privilege to serve on the scrutiny Committee not just because we produced some 70 very sensible amendments, but because the Government, in the light of events in another place, accepted more than 80 per cent. of them. That illustrates the great common sense shown by the Governmenta common sense reflected only in that of the scrutiny Committee.

Alan Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his involvement in that Committee, which was extremely successful. Just to be absolutely accurate, there were 75 recommendations, 61 of which81 per cent.have been accepted.
	As my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), said, this is the great emancipation issue of our time. Today in this Chamber, Members have an opportunity to strike a lasting blow against disability discrimination. We are past the point of party politics. We have a Bill that has been heavily scrutinised and amended in the light of helpful and intelligent contributions from all parts of the House. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), for all her tremendous work in leading our cause, and to pay tribute to all Members of this House and of the other place who have championed disability rights and helped us to scrutinise the Bill properly.
	As I said, we responded positively to 61 recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, making concessions in the other place on issues such as cancers, rail vehicles and improvements to rented property. Today, we have committed ourselves to regulations that will ensure that schools promote disability equality. Disabled people want this Bill and our society needs this Bill, so we have a duty to put it on the statute book. I commend it to the House.

Paul Goodman: We welcome this Disability Discrimination Bill, which builds upon the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that we introduced when in government. The Bill has been widely welcomed by disabled people and disability organisations, and we want to see it on the statute book. The Disability Rights Commission has applauded the work done by Conservatives in the other place in
	getting this key disability rights legislation into such good shape. They have given it thorough scrutiny resulting in many positive gains for disabled people and are joining us in pressing for speedy enactment.
	However, although the Bill was quite a good one when it was first considered in another placeand although it is, as the DRC says, a much improved Bill after that considerationit comes very late in this Parliament. Because it comes so late, the House now looks as though it will have little opportunity, if any, to improve it further, though I note what the Secretary of State said. Many disabled people fear that the Bill may somehow be lost in the wash-up as the coming general election approaches, and not reach the statute book at all.
	I want to explain how that regrettable situation has come about. The Bill was first presaged as long ago as March 2001four years agoin Towards Inclusion, the Government's final response to From Exclusion to Inclusion, a report by the Disability Rights Task Force. In their response, the Government proposed, for example, that
	HIV should count as a disability from diagnosis and that people with cancer should count as disabled from when the cancer is diagnosed as being likely to require substantial treatment.
	That proposal is duly encapsulated in clause 18 and it is but one example of the link between the Government's response four years ago and the present Bill. The Government's response then went to consultation.
	In its election manifesto some two months later, Labour said:
	We are now committed to extending basic rights and opportunities, as indicated in our response to the Disability Rights Taskforce.
	The manifesto confirmed the Government's intention to bring a Bill before Parliament. Two and half years later in October 2003, the Government declared that a Bill on disability discrimination would complete its parliamentary passage before the next electionthe coming electionand that a draft Bill would go before a Joint Committee of both Houses.
	At that point, many disabled people and disability organisations began to express heightened anxiety because they believed that the Joint Committee report and the Government response to it could push back the introduction of a Bill to the very late stages of this Parliament, and that scrutiny would therefore be telescoped and truncated. Those anxieties have been justified, because it looks as though that is exactly what will happen. We consider the Bill today on Second Reading. In other words, it has taken four years from the Government response to the taskforce report to the introduction of the Bill in the elected Chamber.
	Irrespective of what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today, a general election is expected on 5 May, so the House expects to be dissolved no later than 11 April. Furthermore, the Easter break lies between now and that date. The House is therefore unlikelyI put it no higher than thatto have a full Committee stage, if any, or a full Report stage, if any, in which further to improve the Bill by taking into account the suggestions for improvement that disability organisations have made.

Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Disability Rights Commission also said in its briefing that the Bill requires no further amendment?

Paul Goodman: I am aware of that. An interesting question to ask, however, is why it said thatthough neither the Minister nor I can answer it.

Alan Johnson: It is obvious.

Paul Goodman: It is important to ask whether the Disability Rights Commission would have said that were we not having a general election on 5 May and if more time were available for further consideration.

Tim Boswell: My hon. Friend will know that I have a high regard for the Disability Rights Commission and its work. However great the wisdom of the DRC, would it not be even better to tap the wisdom of hon. Members and ascertain their thoughts on amendments? When we are dealing in particular with uncontentious legislation, is it not a bad way to do business for the Government to hold a pistol to Members' heads and say, Either give way and concede without further discussion, or the whole measure will be taken away with no prospect of return for many years?

Paul Goodman: It is important that Members here and in the other place and disabled people and their organisations are able to make their views plain. Like other hon. Members, I have had conversations about the Bill with disabled people and disability organisations, but I can recall none saying that the Bill, though good, is incapable of further improvement.

Tom Levitt: Given the universal acclaim for the Bill, to whatever degree of perfection, will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that his party will, through the usual channels, move heaven and earth to co-operate if it proves necessary to accelerate the Bill's passage through the House?

Paul Goodman: I hear that representation and the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that we want to see the Bill on the statute book. When I asked the Secretary of State earlier whether he could guarantee the Bill a full Committee and Report stage, and guarantee its passage on to the statute book, he said that he was not a business manager, so he could not. Neither am I, so we are in the same position in that regard.

Tom Levitt: One of the reasons why the Secretary of State cannot give that guarantee is that we do not know what the usual channels on the Opposition side will do.

Paul Goodman: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State knows the full views of the usual channels on the Government side, so the argument goes both ways. The key point for the hon. Gentleman to note is that if the Bill had been introduced earlier, we would not need these exchanges across the Floor of the House and we could get on with consideration of the Bill.

Alan Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that we should not have subjected the Bill to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee? I am interested in having that question answered, because that is the main reason why the Bill has come before the House so late. Does he believe that we were wrong?

Paul Goodman: There are two answers to that

Maria Eagle: Yes and no.

Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State will recall that when the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee was established, many disability organisations said that they would have preferred the Bill to come before Parliament straight away. Speaking as a member of the Joint Committee, I agree that that Committee did good work. If the Secretary of State looked further into the proceedings of the Bill, he would find that, after the Joint Committee had reported and the Government had responded to it, the Government could have moved faster to introduce the Bill in the House of Lords. The introduction of the Bill was held up, if I recall correctly, by our old friend the Hunting Bill. Many of my hon. Friends do not believe that that Bill was at all necessary. I hope that I have dealt with that procedural point.

Maria Eagle: The Government accepted a number of the recommendations in the scrutiny Committee report and incorporated them in the Bill. Furthermore, the Bill was already much improved before coming before this House as a result of the Joint Committee's work. How the hon. Gentleman can argue that all that process adds up simply to delay is completely beyond me.

Paul Goodman: As the Minister knows, the Bill before us here today is late. It remains the case that, after receiving the scrutiny Committee report and the Government's response to it, the Government could have introduced the Bill more quickly in the other place. Had they done so, the Bill would have arrived more quickly here. In that case, we could have had full Committee and Report stages, which we are now most unlikely to have. The blame lies fairly and squarely with the Government.
	The likely lack of time for improvement and amendment means that many disabled people will greet this all but unamendable Billthat is what it looks to be, in practicewith mixed feelings: with gladness, naturally, because it is a good Bill, but with a measure of regret for missed opportunities, because it is not as good as it could have been. Throughout this Parliament, we have consistently called for the Bill to be presented and considered as soon as possible. Had it been presented and considered earlier, as I said a few moments ago, it would have been amendable and improvable in this place.

Anne Begg: rose

Paul Goodman: I shall give way in a moment.
	The blame for this singular lack of urgency lies fairly and squarely with the Government's business managers. They, lest we forget, timetabled the only debate on disability in Government time in this Parliament on the worst possible day of this Parliament: Euro-election day, the day on which most Members from all parties were most likely to be absent. The business managers plainly had other more pressing priorities, such as finding time for the Hunting Bill.
	We must presume that the legislation that reaches the statute book will look almost indistinguishable from the Bill before us today. The Bill is, indeed, as the DRC has indicated, very much improved as a result of cross-party and Back-Bench pressure on the Government in the other place. I want to pay tribute to the peers of whatever political party who, for example, forced no fewer than 13 concessions from the Government on Report and defeated the Government in a crucial vote on depression. That vote extended the Bill's protection to people with depression, and is now enshrined in clause 18. I shall return to that matter later, in light of what the Secretary of State said. In the meantime, I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale, who moved that amendment, for his work on the Bill, and to my noble Friend Lord Higgins. As the DRC states in its briefing on the Bill:
	As the result of tough cross-party scrutiny in the Lords, and effective engagement with disabled people and their organisations, the Bill has been strengthened to deliver major gains for disabled people in access to housing, access to rail transport, in relation to public bodies' responsibility to tackle hate crime and promote positive attitudes towards disabled people and in relation to participation in public life.
	A moment ago, I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). I do so now.

Anne Begg: For some 12 minutes, I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman complain about the lack of time for scrutiny of the Bill. I have been waiting for him to get on with explaining what the Bill lacks. I hope that he will stop wasting time complaining about the lack of time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be a very good idea to get on with the content of the Bill. We have dealt sufficiently with the time element.

Paul Goodman: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that some of the gains in the Billand the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South supported the provision in respect of depression, at least in principle, during the Joint Committee proceedingswere originally suggested in the Joint Committee report. For example, the report proposed that disabled people in rented accommodation should have effective rights not to have requests for access improvements to their homes unreasonably refused by landlords. That proposal was originally suggested in recommendation 56 of the Joint Committee's report and is now enshrined in clause 16.
	Another example concerns the imposition of clear duties on the public sector to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people, to tackle all forms of harassment and bullying, and to promote participation in public life. That was originally suggested in recommendation 14, and is now enshrined in clause 3. In the other place, the Government also moved towards the Joint Committee's position on cancer. Originally, the Government directly rejected 17 of the 75 recommendations from the Joint Committee, and eight indirectly. However, I note from the Secretary of State's figures that we got there in the end. All members of the Joint Committee, and others, will therefore welcome those gains.
	As I said, the Bill builds on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. The Equal Opportunities Commission described that as
	the most important legislation in a generation,
	and said that it was
	the most radical of our discrimination laws.
	The Secretary of State gave us a tour d'horizon of the Bill. I want to concentrate on five areasdepression, cancer, hate crimes, transport and schools. I shall begin with depression.
	I referred earlier to the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale to extend the protection given by the Bill to people with depression. The Government opposed the amendment but, as we have heard, it was nevertheless carried in the other place and is now enshrined in clause 18.
	The Joint Committee recommended that people experiencing separate periods of depression totalling six months over a two-year period should be considered to meet the long-term requirement set out in the 1995 Act. Lord Skelmersdale's amendment, which was supported by Mind, was a variant on that theme. According to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, depression is usually a time-limited disorder lasting up to six months. Clause 18(3) stipulates that people will have protection if they undergo episodes of depression and if one such episode in the previous five years lasted at least six months.
	We agree with the Disability Charities Consortiumthe coalition consisting of Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Radar, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and Scopethat clause 18(3) is modest and reasonable. We want it to stay in the Bill, so we were obviously disappointed by what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. Given that there has been no confirmation in this debate yet that the Bill will receive full Committee and Report stages, I am curious to know how the Government propose to remove the provision from the Bill. No doubt, we shall discover that in due course.

Tim Boswell: I cannot answer the conundrum that my hon. Friend has just put to the House, but does he agree that the amendment was an honest attempt to introduce the concept of linking rules into qualification under the disability discrimination legislation, in the same way that similar rules apply to benefit claims made by people who suffer recurrent periods of illness or disability? Does he also agree that it would be sensible to consider applying those linking rules to the circumstances covered by this Bill?

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend is correct. I believe that Lord Skelmersdale was trying to introduce that linking principle. The other place agreed with him and voted for the amendment in the face of Government opposition.

David Taylor: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to my earlier intervention, but employers frequently discriminate against people diagnosed with depression. In one case study, 200 CVs were sent out to personnel managers. They were identical, apart from the fact that 100 of the people involved had been diagnosed with diabetes, and the other 100 with depression. It was no great surprise to discover that the people with diagnosed diabetes were far more likely to get interviews and make further progress down the chain. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a fine Bill, and that it has been introduced by an excellent Secretary of State? I hope that it will not be weakened. If clause 18 is deleted, I hope that it will be replaced with something equivalent.

Paul Goodman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I was very interested in the information that he offered the House. It is true that people with depression face such discrimination, and that is why the other place voted as it did. It is also why the Joint Committee wanted to extend cover for people with depressionand other members of the Joint Committee are present in the Chamber today to vouch for that.
	The Bill extends protection for people with HIV, multiple sclerosis and cancer to the point of diagnosis, and that is welcome. However, clause 18 also contains regulations that may prescribe circumstances in which that protection will not apply to certain cancers. Late last year, the Government issued a consultation document listing some of the cancers to which protection might not apply. They included in situ skin cancers that do not affect the full skin thickness and can be treated easily and simply. That seemed to the DRC, and to our colleagues in another place, to miss the vital point that stigma and discrimination can follow from the point of diagnosis, regardless of the severity of the cancer and the degree of medical treatment necessary.
	The Government have undertaken, as a result of pressure in another place, not to make any regulations until a consultation and review of the proposals has been carried out with the DRC and cancer charities. That is to be welcomed. A Government amendment was also passed ensuring that any such regulations will be made under the affirmative, rather than negative, resolution procedure. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will report later, when she replies to this debate, on the timetable for that consultation and review.
	I turn next to hate crimes.

Anne Begg: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to discuss hate crimes, I want to tease out what he is asking the Government for in respect of cancer. Is he talking about a cancer that is not debilitating but affects the sufferer only in the sense that others perceive an ugly marka strawberry mark or some other deformity that attracts attention? Is not the effect of the latter condition worse than some of the other cancers to which he has referred? If so, should not it be covered by the Bill too?

Paul Goodman: I was asking simply for a timetable in relation to a concession that the Government have already made in another place. It is true that disabled people can be discriminated against regardless of the severity of the illness affecting them. As the hon. Lady would concede, they can be discriminated against simply because they have the condition in question, so it is right that such questions be raised.
	As I said, I want next to move to hate crimes. Clause 3 extends the duties of public authorities. Amendments made in the Lords strengthened the duties to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people, to tackle all forms of harassment and bullying, and to promote participation in public life. That is welcome. The Disability Rights Commission reports that hate crimes affect one in five disabled people, and Mencap reports that hate crimes affect nine out of 10 people with learning disabilities. When does the Minister anticipate that the Home Office will implement section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for an increase in sentences for crimes aggravated by hostility based on a person's disability or sexual orientation?
	On transport, the Joint Committee recommended an end date on rail accessibility of 2017, together with a limited exemption system that would expire in 2005. Amendments accepted by the Government in the Lords, after much debate, set an end date of 2020 in the Bill. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Higgins, who helped get an end date in the Bill by originally pressing the Government for 2017.
	An amendment to remove the power to make exemptions after 1 January 2020 was narrowly defeated in the Lords. The Disability Charities Consortium believes that that sends a strong signal that the Government need to state explicitly that any exemptions granted for the period after 1 January 2020 will have to be proportionate, necessary and for a very limited period only. We agree with the DRC that the 2020 end date must be a firm and definite deadline and that the exemptions procedure set out in clause 6(3) must not be allowed to offer a get-out clause to companies that fail to comply.
	That would usually be a matter that we would seek to explore with a Minister in Committee. However, since we are sadly not guaranteed a Committee stageI am happy to give way to the Minister if she wants to confirm that there will be onewill she assure disabled people that the exemptions will be proportionate and necessary and last for a very limited period only? What guidance can she give them about how long that period is likely to be?
	The Government agreed during the passage of the Bill in another place to publish draft regulations to make changes to part 5 of the DDA in relation to transport. Will the Minister look again at public service vehicle accessibility regulations with a view to including a requirement for audio-visual provision on buses? At present, there is no provision in the regulations for such a requirement.
	The previous enforcement regime on train operating companies that operate inaccessible stock illegally was considered too severe. It has been replaced by a light-touch regulatory framework and a new regime of fines described in clause 8, but as yet the Government have given no indication of the scales that will be used to determine fines. Such information must be forthcoming if disabled people are to have confidence in the new framework. Will the Minister tell us how the fines will be calculated and how the Government will ensure that serious breaches will be more seriously punished? Can repeat fines be applied and, if so, how soon after the initial fine? What systems are in place for when a train company appeals against a fine?
	Finally on transport, the aviation and shipping industries will continue to operate under a code of practice on accessibility, unlike the rail and bus industries, which will operate under a legislative framework. The regulation powers set out in clause 5 allow the Government to make both codes statutory, but the draft regulations that were recently considered do not include aviation and shipping. The Government have indicated that they will await the outcome of research into both industries before taking further action. Will the Minister say when the first fruits of that research will be published? The House will aware that that is a sensitive issue, as the DCC has mustered some high-profile examples of discriminatory treatment, such as its claim that Brittany Ferries has a policy of not carrying assistance dogs unless they are confined to the car for the entire journey.
	I turn now to disability equality duties for schools. As the Secretary of State said, schools will be subject to the general anti-discrimination and pro-opportunity duties set out in clause 3. The question, which he touched on, is whether specific duties should be laid on schools, which would arguably boost outcomes for disabled children. I have heard it suggested that those duties should be in the Bill, rather than applied by regulation. Some 24 per cent. of disabled young people had no qualifications whatsoever in 2003, compared with an average of 11 per cent. for the same age group in the same year. The DRC argues, inter alia, that the lack of specific duties sends the message to schools that disability equality is not as important as race equality, and that that is inconsistent with and undermines achievement of the recommendations made by the Prime Minister's strategy unit, which are based on effective implementation of disability equality schemes.
	The DRC claims that Ministers originally intended schools to have such specific duties. It is certain that Baroness Hollis suggested on Report in another place that the way forward now is to review the existing policy and legislative framework in 18 months. It is suggested that there has been some tension on the issueheaven forbidbetween the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education and Skills, and in particular the implementation review group in the DFES. That group was the only organisation to respond negatively to the consultation by the DWP last year.
	None the less, I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the regulations. We would be opposed to imposing unnecessary and unwelcome new duties on heads, teachers and governing bodies, so if any proposed specific duties were opposed by teachers, we would oppose them too. However, as the Secretary of State knows, it is striking that they do not seem to be opposed to such duties. The Special Educational Consortium to the TUC, National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers argues that such duties would actually reduce red tape. In ordinary circumstancesif I may refer to the timetable one more timewe would have hoped to explore the issue by tabling amendments in Committee or on Report, but that course is unlikely to be open to us.
	We would also have hoped to table amendments to exploreI put it no more strongly than thatwhether the DDA should be amended to enable cases concerning education discrimination in Scotland to be heard by the additional learning support tribunal for Scotland rather than the sheriff court, on the ground that tribunals are the most appropriate place to hear discrimination claims.
	The Bill also invites us to look ahead. The Government intend to set up a commission for equality and human rights and to absorb the DRC into that commission by October 2007. By that time, many provisions in the Bill will have been in place, we hope, for nearly a year. The Bill to introduce the commission is apparently due to receive its Second Reading in this House after Easter, so it has not yet passed through one House of Parliament, let alone two, and must consequently be unlikely to reach the statute book. We will want to examine that Bill closely, but we have already made it clear that we are deeply concerned by some of the possibilities opened up by the proposed abolition of the DRC. The commission is the guardian of the present Bill, and people with disabilities have special needs and requirements.

Tom Levitt: I am not sure that the DRC regards the present proposals as its abolition. There has been considerable consultation with all the representative bodiesnot just with the three existing strands that have commissions, but with the other strands that will be included in the 2006 regulationswhich is why the equalities legislation is being introduced now. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the DRC has welcomed the consultation on the equalities commission and, as it now stands, is happy to go along with it?

Paul Goodman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the DRC expressed anxieties about protecting the role of disability work in the new commission. We wait to see exactly what happens during the passage of the Bill. We want to reserve our position until the issues in that Bill have been fully explored, but we have no opposition to an equalities commission in principle.
	The barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating on equal terms in modern Britain are formidable. There is concern that the distinctive identity mission and work of the DRC could be imperilled, which is why we look forward to discussions on the Bill.
	Consideration of Bills is necessarily a dry and dusty business, at least in part; clauses are examined, improvements are suggested and intentions are probed. There is far more to the Bill than the sum of its clauses. It is part of a story of legislation and action to try to ensure equal opportunities and social justice for disabled people. The source of that legislation and action is not Government, but disabled people and the wider community.
	Some progress has been made under the Governments of both main parties, although that progress is hard to measure. However, disabled people all too often remain an untapped source of talent and potential and all too frequently find themselves marginalised and excluded. We should remember that a disabled child is still less likely to survive birth than a non-disabled child. As a disabled child grows to be an adult, they are less likely than a non-disabled adult to gain qualifications, go to university, get a job, earn as much money, have easy access to transport or enjoy leisure activities. As a disabled adult ages, they are still less likely to enjoy the same income in retirement, access to the benefits system as quickly or live as long as a non-disabled person of the same age.
	Equal opportunities have not yet been realised. Perhaps they will always be work in progress, just as anti-discrimination legislation, like the Bill, is always work in progress and always capable of improvement. Although, sadly, the House may not have further opportunities to improve the Bill, it is part of a process of legislation and action to fight discrimination and to deliver better life chances for disabled people. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to play a part in that.

Anne Begg: I am delighted to be involved in the debate on this Bill. A few weeks ago, I met some disabled people at the Labour party Scottish conference and may have given them the false impression that, if there were an early election, the Bill might fall and not reach the statute book. However, I was delighted when I returned to the House the following week and spoke to the Minister for Disabled People, because he assured me that the Government have every intention of ensuring that, whenever the election is called, the Bill will be on the statute book. I apologise to those whom I spoke to that weekend if I gave them a false impression about the Government's intention; it is clear that they intend to put the Bill firmly on the statute book.
	I take issue with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) about whether our discussion has been truncated. It is worth remembering that, when a Bill is introduced in the House of Commons first, that is generally the first bite of the cherry in amending and scrutinising it. However, this is the third attempt at scrutinising the Bill. The draft Bill was first considered by the scrutiny Committee on which the hon. Gentleman and I served. Many changes were made as a result of that, probably more than would have been achieved during the normal parliamentary procedures in Standing Committees in either place.

Paul Goodman: Can the hon. Lady confirm that I did not say that consideration of the Bill had been truncated at this stage? I said that it was likely to be truncated after Second Reading. Does she disagree?

Anne Begg: That answers the point I am making that, by the time the Bill goes into Committee in this House, most of the serious work will have been done. Not only were serious amendments made to the draft Billthe hon. Gentleman will agree that those amendments were welcomebut it has been further amended in the other place. As a result of those amendments, the scrutiny remaining for this House to do is perhaps less than would normally follow Second Reading, Standing Committee and remaining stages in this House followed by those stages in another place. The Bill is at the end of that process and has gone through a lot more scrutiny than many other Bills would have had by this stage. The Government cannot be accused of lack of scrutiny of the Bill. I believe that everyone in this House wants the Bill on the statute book and I hope that it will go speedily through Standing Committee in this House.
	The Bill is the final missing piece in a jigsaw of equality legislation. It does not hang together easily because it is slightly bitty and covers different aspects, partly because of its purpose, which is to fill the gaps left by other legislation. Starting with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we have seen that legislation works.
	Long before I was elected to this place, I was involved with a number of organisations for the disabled. I often met people who argued that to bring about the changes in people's attitudes to disabled people that we have seen in recent years required education and persuasion, not legislation. That argument was often used in this House against private Member's Bills. It was argued that the best way of changing attitudes and the way in which disabled people are perceived in society was not by legislation, certainly not heavy-handed legislation, but by education. However, we know that education and persuasion did not work. The 1995 Act proved that, when there is a framework of legislation, attitudes change more rapidly than with gentle persuasion or pointing out that things are wrong. That is mainly because in this country people want to abide by the law, and legislation can provide the framework or civic context that says that something is wrong. To discriminate against people because of their disability is wrong. To stop someone getting a job because they happen to have a disability is wrong. Without the context of legislation, people are not always sure what is right or wrong. Legislation has been proved to work and I am pleased that the Government are continuing to plug the gaps of the existing legislative framework.
	I do not want to go into the details of the Bill, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the framework very well in his speech, and I am conscious that other hon. Members want to scrutinise the Bill. I am most pleased about provisions covering, for example, private clubs. The fact that private clubs could discriminate against people with disabilities was always a huge gap in the provision. Guests and members of clubs with more than 25 members will be covered by the Bill.

Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for highlighting the provision covering private clubs, which will do a great deal. Does she agree that the perniciousness of the previous situation was not just that disabled people went to clubs and were not admitted, but the climate of uncertainty and the feeling that they would not be welcome in such clubs in the first place?

Anne Begg: That is important because we want disabled people to play their full part in an equal society. That includes social life and engagement with other people who may not share a disability. For many disabled people the only clubs they could go to were those for disabled people where they would meet only people who shared some of the same problems. They want to be able to go to mainstream clubs. Just because someone has a disability, it does not mean that they necessarily share the same hobbies and interests as other people with disabilities. It would be absurd to assume that, but 30 years ago it was often assumed that if someone was severely disabled and in a wheelchair they would like to go along to a club to play draughts, dominoes and other passive pastimes.
	When I was teaching, one of my pupils said to me, I think we should have clubs for disabled people, so that they could go along and play draughts or whatever. That's how we should get disabled people back into society. I asked that young girl if she would like to go to a club to play only draughts and dominoes. She said, No, I would hate it. I said, Well, I would hate it too. It took a wee while for the penny to drop that I as a disabled personperhaps she did not regard me as a disabled personwould hate such a club. The limit of imagination about what disabled people are capable of doing often limits disabled people themselves.
	That story illustrates the perception of what disabled people could do on the part of those who are not disabled. However, I am glad to say that attitudes have changed immeasurably in recent years, thanks to this Government and the legislative framework. When the Bill was undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, I received an email from a climbing club, which was concerned that if it was, as a private club, brought under the remit of the DDA it would have to make its hutsor bothies, as they are called in Scotlandaccessible to people in wheelchairs, which would be an unreasonable cost. I pointed out to the club the test of reasonableness. If someone in a wheelchair could not get up the mountain to the hut, there would be no need to ensure wheelchair access. However, less than 5 per cent. of people with disabilities use wheelchairs and what the climbing club could no longer do was to discriminate against someone who was blind or had a limb missing, but who could still get up to a hut to stay the night. We often need to point out that people with disabilities have different disabilities and a raft of different access needs. It is important that private clubs be brought under the DDA, and the Bill will achieve that.
	Another important provision in the Bill concerns housing, especially in the rented sector. As the hon. Member for Wycombe pointed out, in the Joint Committee I was concerned about what happens when disabled people cannot get adjustments made to the access to their homes because it is along a communal path, up communal stairs or through some communal ground and the other people who have access object. That concern was based on the experience of one of my constituents, who had bought their own council flat, as had the person who lived upstairsthe properties were four-in-a-block flats. The upstairs neighbours objected to a ramp being installed up to the front door of the downstairs flat because it would have been along the communal path. That seemed grossly unfair. The Bill would not necessarily answer all such problems, but I welcome the fact that the DRC can act as mediator when relationships break down in such circumstances. That was what was missing in my constituent's case. No one had the ability to act as mediator to ensure that the changes could be made. I am glad that housing, especially in the rented sector, will be brought under the DDA by the Bill, because inevitably many disabled people live in the private rented sector and it is important that landlords have the duty not to block the aids and adaptations that may be necessary to allow disabled people to live in their own homes.
	I am also glad that councillors will be covered by the DDA under the Bill. As a disabled MP, I am probably already covered under employment legislation, so I cannot be discriminated against, although since I was elected I have not faced such discrimination. It is good, however, that councillors, who are not employees in the normal sense, will be covered.
	Perhaps the aspect of the Bill that will make the biggest change in the lives of disabled people is the inclusion of travel and transport. It was a huge gap in the original 1995 Act that transport was not regarded as a service, and it has been a perpetual bugbear for disabled people that transport is so difficult. Disabled people have difficulty getting around in the first place, and then they find that the vehicles that they may use are not adapted for their needs. That is a double whammy and feels like a particular insult.
	I noted that the Budget introduced free bus travel at off-peak times for disabled people in England, following Scotland's example. However, there is no point in giving disabled people free bus travel if they cannot get on the buses in the first place. The imperative is to ensure that all new rolling stock is accessible. That will not be the case for coaches, and we need to do more work on that. When disabled people want to travel by bus using their free bus pass, they should have access. There is no point in giving people extra freedoms if the transport providers have not come up to scratch.
	I am glad that the other place put into the Bill an end date for accessibility for rail rolling stock. I would have liked it to be earlier, and the Joint Committee recommended 2017 by splitting the difference between what the Government wanted and what the disabled organisations wanted, which was 2015. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State reiterate that 2020 is an end date, not the date at which change must start. I hope that rail operators will recognise the economic advantages of providing accessible rolling stock. More disabled people will travel more, but so will those who accompany them. I always have somebody else with me, and if I cannot travel, they do not travel either. It is not only the disabled people, but their friends and families who are discriminated against. There is, therefore, an economic case for making all forms of transport accessible as soon as possible. That is crucial and I hope that the rail operators will take heed of it.
	The issue of education tribunals was raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe, with regard to what is happening in Scotland. Under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, the SEN provisions apply to England and Wales, but the civil rights provisions apply to the whole of Scotland, because education is a devolved function. Although education as a service was brought under the auspices of the DDA, how that was implemented was obviously left to the Scottish Executive.
	At the time, when disputes arose over a child's special educational needs, tribunals were to be set up in England and Wales to hear such cases, but the Scottish Parliament had not legislated for the equivalent provisions in Scotland. The only way that any argument over such access could be settled in Scotland was through the existing legal systemthe sheriff courtsas SEN tribunals did not exist in Scotland at that time. Since then, the Scottish Parliament has legislated in respect of SEN. Such tribunals now exist with regard to SEN provision, but access issues must still go to sheriff courts.
	In the past day or so, I received an e-mail from the DRC in Scotland to say that, following constructive talks with members of the Scottish Executive, positive moves are taking place to set a time scale in Scotland to ensure that tribunals hear cases that relate to SEN provision, as well as cases where a child has been discriminated against because of a disability and perhaps not allowed to go to a certain school. The time scale has not yet been set, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are in discussion with the relevant Ministers in the Scottish Executive to ensure that they have the powers to bring both sorts of dispute under the same type of tribunal hearing. I am sure that a solution can be found.
	There was some discussion about whether the House would need to pass the necessary legislation or whether that could be done by the Scottish Executive, but I hope that the Minister can assure us she is engaged with Ministers in the Scottish Executive to ensure that they have the powers they require to make that decision themselves. The decision has to lie with them and it is for them to make up their minds, but if any legislative quirk means that the relevant changes must be made by the House, I hope that they will be put in place when the time comes.
	Those are some of the things that I welcome in the Bill. There is a lot more in itit has lots of little bits that fill in the various gapsbut it is worth remembering that the Bill is not the only thing that the Government are doing in relation to disability. Although the Bill will help to ensure that people will not be discriminated against on the grounds of their disability or for many other reasons, it is worth nothing that the Government are taking a great deal of actionfor example, on employmentto ensure that disabled people play their full part in society and are not excluded.
	It is one thing to ensure that disabled people will not be discriminated against when they go for a job interview; it is another to ensure that they are properly equipped to go to that job interview in the first place and, indeed, that the job exists so that they can apply for it. All the other things that the Department for Work and Pensions is doing with regard to encouraging disabled people into the workplacewhether young disabled people or those who are sitting on incapacity benefitcannot be divorced from these proposals. That work is crucial to ensure that disabled people can take advantage of the rights that the Bill will give to them. It is one thing to have the rights; it is another thing to be able to use them fully.
	I should like to raise another issue that has slipped past: genetic discrimination. I was delighted to hear that the moratorium on insurance companies gaining access to information about someone's genetic make-up in determining the policy that they will award has been extended. That is very important because, at some time in the future, the House may have to pass legislation saying that it is as wrong to discriminate on the grounds of genetics as on those of disability.
	I do not want to take up any more of the House's time at the moment, but I want to reiterate what both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the hon. Member for Wycombe have said: it is absolutely crucial the Bill get on to the statute book before the election, because many of the rights that disabled people are still waiting to receive are included in the Bill. It will make a difference to people's lives. It will ensure that those of us who have a disability are not disadvantaged in the lives that we lead, and we will be able to hold our heads up high and go out and do what everyone else is doing.

Paul Holmes: I welcome the Bill, as every hon. Member who has spoken so far in the debate has done, and I expect that every hon. Member still to take part will do so as well.
	Since the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 first started to come into effect, steps have been taken to plug the various gaps in that original legislation. The Bill represents another major step in that direction, and no one wants to see it fall at the last hurdle. For example, the Local Government Association recently said:
	The LGA welcomes this bill, which will give greater equality of opportunity to disabled people, extending their civil rights and addressing the barriers that they face, and looks forward to its enactment. The LGA believes this to be an important piece of legislation and is keen to see that adequate parliamentary time is made available for this bill to complete its passage in the current parliamentary session.
	The Disability Rights Commission, as we have heard, also strongly commends the Bill and says that it is
	urgently needed to outlaw discrimination in key areas of daily life and break down the institutional barriers which impede the social inclusion of 10 million disabled people across Britain.
	The DRC continues:
	It represents a major advance for disabled people . . . It is now imperative that the Bill reaches the statute book in advance of a general election.
	Many other organisations have said exactly the same things, but not everyone agrees. I do not know whether the Minister has seen an article in The Times today, in which Alice Miles criticises the Bill, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Government's advertisements in relation to disabled access to work, to shops, restaurants and transport and to life in general. That a supposedly serious journalist in a supposedly serious newspaper can write such crass and patronising nonsense in this day and age simply illustrates why the Bill is needed. The Times article implies that there is no problem of access for disabled people to businesses, shops, transport and work because good old British common sense and our sense of fair play mean that everyone helps out the genuinely disabled and all is well. Hon. Members should note the use of the phrase genuinely disabled.

Gordon Marsden: I very much concur with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses. Does he agree that one of the problems inherent in such comments is the assumption that the great British public can always see what the disability is?

Paul Holmes: Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentlemanand the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) has just made the point that most people think about people in wheelchairs when they talk about disability, but that is a small category of the range of different disabilities, and much disability is invisible in that sense.

Paul Goodman: We must not make too much of this, but the author of that piece wrote:
	The public, it seems, is capable of showing admirable common sense in the application of over-wieldy regulation.
	I think that was a reference to the regulation introduced under the 1995 Act. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the public are indeed showing admirable common sense shows that the regulation is not over-burdensome in many cases, so the author was defeating her own arguments?

Paul Holmes: Again, I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman's observation. The article assumed that there were no problems with access and that everyone would realise how to overcome any difficulties that occurred. For example, it said specifically that the average adaptation to allow disabled access to premises would cost only 70 to 100. However, many small businesses do not know that. They fear that regulations will mean that they must install much more expensive adaptations and do not realise that relatively simply measures can be implemented. The article was wide of the mark.
	There was a clear implication behind the article's reference to the genuinely disabled. It seemed to be asking how many of the 10 million disabled people figure that it ridiculed might be classified as genuinely disabled, rather than, presumably, malingerers or non-genuinely disabled.

Anne Begg: I am afraid that I did not read the article, but perhaps the author might class me as one of the genuinely disabled. Although I would love to think that the general public were always polite and helpful to those of us with disabilities, I know that people who park in disabled bays too close to my car so that I cannot get into it with my wheelchair have not been polite when challenged about their lack of courtesy or forethought.

Paul Holmes: I agree with the hon. Lady. No one in the Chamber can speak with more authority about the issue than her. I drive my mother-in-law to the supermarket in my home town of Chesterfield. She has a blue badge so that we can access disabled parking spaces, but they are often full. After remonstrating with people who park in them for convenience rather than because they need to use them, I know from first hand about the arrogance and rude behaviour that the hon. Lady describes.

Tom Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the converse of that situation is that some people do not recognise their own disabilities or claim what is their right, especially by accessing services? I am thinking especially of people with hearing impairments who regard that as a difficulty that they must overcome, rather than something of which other people must now take account under the law when providing goods and services.

Paul Holmes: Absolutely, although we are in danger of going off into the long debate about the social and medical models of disability. The social model indicates that disability is society's problem owing to the obstacles that it puts in people's way, rather than the problem of the people affected.
	Several organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind and RADAR have put out responses to the ridiculous and demeaning article. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's response to it because she indicated earlier that she had read it.
	Every serious commentator inside and outside the House welcomes the Bill. No one wants it to fail at the last hurdle, which is why it is disappointing that the Bill was introduced late in the Parliament and that it is running up against the buffers of an imminent general election. The progress of the Bill could have been a superb model of how to pass legislation in the 21st century.
	The Bill first went before the Joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) has indicated that he did not think that that was such a good idea, but I disagree completely. I have taken part in pre-legislative scrutiny with the Education and Skills Committee on the School Transport Bill, for example, and I think that it is a welcome innovation that can do much to improve the way in which Parliament works and improves legislation.
	The pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill produced many suggestions about how to improve it and the Government accepted a great majority of them, although by no means every one. That process has led to major improvement to the Bill. However, I have never understood that pre-legislative scrutiny is supposed to replace one of the Houses of Parliament. An earlier speaker almost seemed to suggest that, given that the Bill had received pre-legislative scrutiny and gone through the House of Lords, there was no need for the House of Commons to play its part in the process. That is not the purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny. It was designed to add an additional stage to a Bill's consideration at an early time in its passage when the Government and the Opposition would not be entrenched in political stances and thus more open to accepting good, sensible suggestions. It allows legislation to be considered in a less partisan manner than is the tendency during the formal legislative process.

Anne Begg: I suspect that I am the hon. Member to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. I was not saying that I did not think that the Bill should complete each of its stages in this House, but that less time would be required for its consideration because it had been discussed in the other place and by the Joint Committee. I was not trying to undermine this House, but pointing out that it is at the end of the process, not the beginning, unlike most other Bills.

Paul Holmes: I accept all the points that the hon. Lady makes. The programme motion provides for the Bill to spend two weeks in Committee after the Easter recess, but more or less everyone accepts that that will not happen because of an imminent general election. Perhaps the Bill will get one day in Committee on 5 April, or we may get no time at all and the whole lot will be dealt with in the wash-up. A two-week Committee process would have been perfectly adequate for a Bill that has been thoroughly scrutinised and to which many amendments have been madealthough there are still some outstanding issues to addressso I agree with the hon. Lady that we do not need an especially long process at this stage. However, we need that legitimate process to be carried out, although that will almost certainly not happen after the recess because of the election.
	The Bill's passage could have been a model example of how to pass legislation in the 21st century. It received excellent pre-legislative scrutiny after which many suggestions were accepted, and then went through its full process in the other place. The Lords did a lot of excellent work on the Bill, and I mention especially the work of Lords Addington and Oakeshott. Lord Addington successfully moved an amendment to require an annual report to be made to Parliament to monitor the number of exemptions granted to the rail industry to exempt stock from being accessible to disabled people. That measure will increase the pressure on rail operators to ensure that they not only meet the target by 2020, but hopefully exceed it and make all their stock accessible before that date. We hoped that we could finish the job in the Commons after such excellent work in the other place, but the Bill will probably go into the wash-up instead of being properly considered in Committee.
	The Minister has said that the desired end of the process is an Act of Parliament, not a Bill that has been excessively well scrutinised. If the Government had introduced the Bill in 2001 or 2002, that would not have been a problem, because we would have been able to scrutinise it properly, improve it further and then get an Act of Parliament. If the Government had not left such a long gap between the report of the Joint Committee and the Bill's introduction in the Lords, we would not have had a problem and could have gone through the whole process properly. I am not making that point for the first time. On 10 June 2004, I stood in this spot during a debate on disability and made exactly the same point. I said that the responses from the draft scrutiny were being considered and asked whether the Bill would be timetabled to get through Parliament before the next election destroyed it. If the Government had given the Bill higher priority earlier, we would not face such a problem. However, given that I made the point last year and even before that, it is well worn and I shall not take it any further.
	We lack an equalities Act. The LGA said in its recent briefing on the Bill that it felt strongly that
	a Single Equalities Act would provide a clear and common standard of protection against discrimination for all in society.
	As we know, there are six strands of discrimination, all of which have different degrees of law and protection extended to them at the moment. The LGA argues:
	Separate duties to promote equality of opportunity for different groups will add to the administrative burdens on councils,
	although that also applies to other bodies. It says that that will increase the number of plans and strategies that councils, the Government and other bodies are dealing with and trying to rationalise at present.
	The Bill instead goes down the road of placing specific duties on specific bodies to promote equality of opportunity, such as councils and schools. I shall talk about schools later. Lord Lester of course piloted the Equality Bill through the House of Lords, and although many hon. Members supported that private Member's Bill, the Government refused to implement it. We are putting the cart before the horse, in a way, because it is regrettable that we do not have a single equalities Act before moving on to address other matters and the single equality commission.
	I seek the Minister's clarification on three specific areas of inclusion or omission in the Bill as it stands. First, I want to mention including cancer from the point of diagnosis as falling within the definition of disability. That was a welcome step forward, but the Government have chosen to exclude what they term minor cancers, because they are quickly and easily treated and will not therefore lead to discrimination. That unnecessarily complicates the Bill, and it will mean that the Government have to produce detailed statutory guidance about what would or would not constitute substantial treatment, for example, in individual cases of specific cancers.
	More importantly, apart from complicating the Bill, such provision ignores the fact that stigma is the basis of discrimination, rather than the illness itself. The cancer organisations and disability charities argue that a cancer diagnosis, however minor, can lead to discrimination against an individual regarding employment, travel or life insurance, mortgage applications or income and payment protection on loans or mortgages. All the various bodies to which such people make their applications may discriminate on the ground of cancer. They may not draw the line between serious and minor, in so far as such a line can be drawn.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to make regulations excluding certain cancers only after the Government have reviewed the evidence submitted to them, and to do so through affirmative procedures. I noted that the Disability Rights Commission was prayed in aid as saying that it was satisfied with that approach and that we did not need to go any further. The DRC is an admirable body with which I have done a lot of work and I have great respect for it, but although it says that that is enough, many other bodies do not agree. For example, Macmillan Cancer Relief, Cancer Research UK and CancerBACUP are still very concerned about the issue and would like to see further changes in the Bill to meet their concerns.
	Will the Minister confirm that she has received a letter from the chief executives of those three leading and respected cancer charities? Will she confirm that they have appealed to her in their letter and in their detailed submissions to the Department's consultation, which has just ended, to strengthen a Bill that they welcome very much so that everyone with a cancer diagnosis is protected from unjustified discrimination from the moment at which they are diagnosed, in line with the proposals in the Bill for people with multiple sclerosis or an HIV diagnosis, for example? Will she explain to the House how the Government's acknowledgement on 26 November last year in a letter to one of her hon. Friends that stigma is the basis of discrimination can be reconciled with the Bill's proposal to exclude from protection people with certain types of cancer? Is she not thereby implying that the Government can somehow decide arbitrarily that one type of cancer will incur stigma, while another will not? How can they be so sure of that position?
	On the question of substantial treatment, will the Minister comment on Cancer Research UK's view that the prescribed cancers should not be excluded from clause 17, partly on the ground that many of the exempted cancers frequently require substantial treatment eventually? There was a long discussion in the other place about the point at which a superficial skin cancer or melanoma, for example, became serious. At a depth of one sixteenth of a millimetre or slightly more, it would apparently become a serious cancer as opposed to a minor one. Many minor cancers require substantial treatment. Will she respond to Cancer Research UK's questioning of the definition of substantial treatment and comment on its view that the current definition ignores the distress caused to all patients, whether they have a minor or major cancer at the initial point of diagnosis?
	Is Cancer Research UK not absolutely right when it says:
	the Government proposals to exclude people with certain types of cancer from protection . . . particularly on arbitrary or ill-defined criteria, risks creating a complexity where none is needed?
	Does the Minister accept that it would make a very good Bill even better if she were to do the logical thing and ensure that it avoided complicating the situation in such a way?

Paul Goodman: I was intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we might have a day in Committee. Does he agree that it would be far better if we spent such a day discussing matters such as cancer and did not spend any of it rolling back the gains on depression that were made in the Lords?

Paul Holmes: I agree that, if we do get a Committee, it should be used for those purposes. A number of amendments were made in another place, and I think that Ministers have so far indicated that they intend to try to reverse only one of them, which deals with depression. That would be a retrograde step. The wide range of disability charities in the disabled charities coalition have made it clear that they would be very unhappy if the amendment on depression were removed. It would be better to look at how we can improve the Bill after the recess rather than look at ways of weakening it.
	As a final point on cancer, does the Minister agree that, even at this stage, there is still time to get the Bill right for everyone with cancer, so that all people with cancer and all the cancer disability and research groups can welcome it wholeheartedly and without reservation? After a Parliament in which the Government have rightly given cancer priority, surely getting the Bill right for everyone with cancer would be a testimony to joined-up government and is a golden opportunity for them to reaffirm their commitment to everyone living with cancer.
	I was asked to raise the second of my three issues by the Parkinson's Disease Society. It has major concerns about the inclusion in the Bill of just one neurological conditionmultiple sclerosisrather than a clause that covers all progressive and fluctuating neurological conditions. The current Bill specifically included MS from diagnosis as a result of an unexpected and unsuccessful discrimination case that was brought by a man with MS. As a result of the failure of the case, the Government decided that they needed to include MS in the Bill.

Maria Eagle: MS was already included in the Bill; in fact, it was in the original Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The problem that the case threw up was that somebody who everybody thought was obviously disabled was said not to be, because he could not prove that his condition would deteriorate. That is the minor issue that we are trying to put right.

Paul Holmes: I welcome the Minister's comments, but they lead into exactly the point that the Parkinson's Disease Society wishes to make. Exactly the same condition that applies to the MS sufferer who lost a discrimination case when everyone thought that the rules covered it would apply in future to people with Parkinson's disease. Do we have to wait until somebody with Parkinson's disease goes to a tribunal or a court and loses before we look at changing the legislation, or are we adequately covered at this stage if we are naming only one neurological condition, MS, and not others, such as Parkinson's? Does that leave the Bill too open and too weak with regard to Parkinson's? The Minister is shaking her head; I am sure that she will reassure us later.

Anne Begg: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The MS decision was perverse, however, possibly because the condition cannot always be proved by any clinician to be necessarily progressive. That would not be the case with regard to Parkinson's, Huntington's or a number of the other neurological diseases. I cannot imagine any clinician saying that there is not an automatic progression in those conditions, so they would, I hope, already be covered.

Paul Holmes: I hope that the hon. Lady's observations are correct. The Minister was nodding, and I am sure that she will reassure us. The Parkinson's Disease Society was concerned to get the point clarified on the record in this debate precisely because after the early onset of Parkinson's is diagnosed, it can be many years before it starts to affect somebody's life and ability to work and to appear as a debilitating condition. As that long period can elapse in some cases of Parkinson's, people are worried that they might have to go through the same legal procedure as the MS sufferer went through in order to be covered.

Maria Eagle: Perhaps I should clarify now that the current law provides that, on the onset of the first symptom that one normally gets before a disease such as Parkinson's is diagnosed, as long as the condition is going to be progressive and lead to disability, one is covered from that point, even if one is not suffering severe symptoms at that stage.

Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister; I am sure that the Parkinson's Disease Society will be happy to have that clarification on the record.
	My third point concerns schools, which play a major and fundamental role in shaping our society in a couple of ways, the first of which is access for all. Certain categories of children may be excluded from access to a good education because they are poor and qualify for free school meals, are in carethe Department for Education and Skills has expressed concern that children in care do not get a good deal on access to schoolsor have special educational needs. Such children need just the same, if not more, access to schools as any other children. Otherwise, they will miss out on educational opportunity, finish their education with inferior qualifications, and have much less chance of going into satisfying and well paid careers and having a good life as adults. Schools are very important in respect of social inclusion and equal access to education.
	Secondly, schools are important in a more general way, because of the role that they play in socialising and forming attitudes among our young people, who are our future adults, business men, Members of Parliament, Ministers and so on. If all children are educated together where that is practicalI know that there are difficulties about how far that can gothey become, as children and later as adults, far more tolerant, understanding and accepting of differences, whatever they may be.
	I speak as one who was a teacher for 22 years. For 17 of those years, I worked in a school in the constituency of the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt)at first it was a boys school, but then it merged with a local girls school to become a mixed comprehensive. In its two different incarnations, that school had a very good reputation for including children with special educational needs and disabilities. In the course of those years teaching in mainstream classes in a mainstream comprehensive, I taught children with fragile X syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and Down's syndrome, as well as children who were registered as 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. blind. That worked very successfully. Pupils accepted that such children were simply other children and, later, simply other adults. They accepted such conditions automatically because they had been exposed to them and experienced them all the way through. It was not a matter of separating people out into different categories by saying, You go to a special school; you will never mix with anybody else. That is exactly how it should be. I can see hon. Members nodding.
	Ofsted has pointed out that, according to its inspections, up to 50 per cent. of schools are not completely fulfilling their obligations on social inclusion. I would argue, as I frequently have here and in the Select Committee, that one of the reasons for that is the pressure of league tables and testing. The Committee has repeatedly criticised thatfor example, in its report on secondary education, which was published last Thursday morning, and in its report on school admissions and diversity of provision in schools, which was published last year. There is widespread concern about the whole area of social inclusion, not only the specific issue of children with disability or special education needs.
	Somebody said that the Bill is perfect. I do not think that the DRC would go quite that far, even if it feels that there is nothing else to change at this stage. The Disability Charities Consortium, which includes a very wide range of disability groups, does not agree. It is worried that while a general duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled children will apply to schools, it appearsthis is reflected in what the Secretary of State said in his opening commentsthat a specific duty will not be applied to schools even though it will be applied to councils, universities and further education colleges.

Maria Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the Secretary of State, he would have heard him say that specific duties will apply to schools.

Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister. That is certainly not the way I heard it, but I will look carefully at the written record tomorrow.

Paul Goodman: I think that the Minister is right about what the Secretary of State said. The important point is that he said that it would be done by regulation, and some of those who were calling for action were hoping that these measures would be in the Bill. It now looks unlikely that we will get a chance to debate that or to table amendments in Committee that would insert them.

Paul Holmes: I welcome those comments. As I recall, the Secretary of State said that any such measures would be made much less onerous than those relating to race relations, for example.
	In relation to Ofsted's observations on schools that do not meet requirements on social inclusion, I draw on my experience in education and the numerous investigations by the Education and Skills Committee into secondary education over the past two years, which have led to critical reports by that Committee, although it is dominated by Government Members. I am concerned that unless the obligation on all schoolsnot only those that grasp such opportunities wholeheartedly, as many dois crystal clear, this will not go as far as we want. At a recent meeting, representatives of the Disability Charities Consortium pointed out that the slow progress that many   schools are making in implementing their duties under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 justifies their concern about what might happen in future.
	Many other matters, some of which have already been mentioned, would normally be considered in more detail in Committee, but I doubt that we will able to do that. I absolutely welcome and support what has been achieved by this good and much improved Bill as it has gone through the process from pre-legislative scrutiny onwards, and I regret that we will probably not be able to finish the job properly because of the imminent general election.

Gordon Marsden: I join all Members who have spoken so far, and no doubt those who will speak after me, in wholeheartedly welcoming the Bill.
	We all bring our different perspectives to a subject such as this and it is only fair for me to start, if the House will indulge me, by displaying the two main elements of mine. The first is personal, in that, for nearly 30 years, my mother has battled a very cruel and debilitating disabilityosteoporosis. That started with an horrendous accident that she had about two days before my A-levels, which gives an idea of the time span. During that period, she has battled strongly, in a very feisty way, and has probably taught me as much as I learned, before becoming a Member of Parliament, about the practicalities, limitations and challenges of being disabled, particularly with that disability.
	Osteoporosis affects around one in two women over the age of 50 and, as people are increasingly aware, one in five men over the age of 50. Sadly, just as haemophilia can have disastrous effects on people as regards the blood, osteoporosis does the same with bones. Despite all that, my mother has managed to battle her disabilities with great perseverance. Over the years, she has managed to travel to the Holy Land and other places by airthe aviation aspects of the Bill are particularly welcome.
	I pay tribute to the National Osteoporosis Society, which has battled tirelessly to raise awareness of the condition, and to its local representatives in the Blackpool and Fylde areaJean Marsh and otherswho have lobbied tirelessly.
	Of course, my mother would not have been able to do much of what she did without the support and devoted contribution of my late father as her carer. That is an important aspect that we should bear in mind when considering the Bill. Carers are the glue that binds together many disabled people's self-esteem. In many cases, they are the people who help disabled people to maintain their struggle for quality of life. It is right that we should remember the relatives, friends and, indeed, thousands of young peopleoften teenagerswho act as carers.
	The Carers National Association does a great job, as does the carers association in Blackpool. I was delighted to support the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, successfully promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis). The Bill is for carers as well as for disabled people. It will help to encourage and empower many carers and people with disabilities.
	A second influence that underpins my commitment in this field has been my experience as Member of Parliament for Blackpool, South. Disabilities are a major issue in seaside and coastal towns, because they have a larger than average number of older people who are more prone to disabilities. Furthermore, a larger than average number of people with health problems and disabilities move to such towns. I might gently point out, in a wholly non-partisan fashion, that that is not always fully recognised in funding formulae.
	In Blackpool, 37 per cent. of my constituents have a limiting long-term illness and 11,600 of them receive disability living allowance or attendance allowance, which gives some indication of the issues in my constituency.

Tom Levitt: Although my hon. Friend is correct in saying that there are costs associated with a high number of disabled constituents, and indeed visitors, is not it also the case that some parts of the tourism industry do better than others in attracting the disabled pound and making their services more attractive to disabled people, who have not always been well catered for in the past?

Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend is right and he provides the hook for the next bit of my speech.
	Seaside towns obviously offer leisure and relaxation, but they face the challenge of building on the market to which my hon. Friend referredfor accommodation, shopping and visiting restaurants and clubsso the way in which they cater for their disabled visitors as well as for their disabled residents is crucial. That is why the recognition of responsibilities that the Bill provides in those aspects is so vital.
	I am proud to have been the honorary president of the Disability Services Organisation for Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde, which provides a number of services with only a small number of paid staff and volunteers. Two key services are rideability and shopmobility. As Members will appreciate, millions of people visit Blackpool every year and it is important that disabled people should be able to use the motorised vehicles and other equipment that shopmobility can provide.
	In places where there is a high concentration of people with disabilities, there is also a high concentration of champions of people with disabilities, and I want to pay tribute to some of my constituents in that respect. Mr. Chris Williams of Layton fought tirelessly against the anomaly whereby disabled people had to swap a flat-rate concessionary fare for a half-price one when they reached the age of 65. That is why I, like many others, welcomed the Chancellor's announcement about free transport for disabled people in the Budget. I praise Mr. Ray Ball of the Macular Disease Society and all the other members of that society who have fought tirelessly on that issue, and also to get a proper crossing point for a busy road in South Shore in my constituency, near the Princess Alexandra home for the blind. The role of disabled people in terms of work is important, and I pay tribute not only to the Princess Alexandra home, which operates a bed factory in Blackpool, and to its secretary, Mr. Kevin Winkley, but also to my constituent Mr. Martin Penfold, who is a member of the Blackpool trades council and a doughty fighter for the rights of disabled workers.
	There are other organisations in my constituency, such as Action on Access, the Disability Services Organisation and the carers association, to which I have already referred, run by Mr. Doug Slimming. About four minutes' walk from my home in Blackpool is theBLESMABritish Limbless Ex-Service Men's Associationhome. Many people will know of the good work it does for ex-servicemen and their dependants. In all communities, there are individuals who feel strongly about and fight on disabled issues. They do best when they have the support of crusading local journalists. I pay tribute to my local paper, the Blackpool Gazette, and to its feature editor, Jackie Morley, who has done so much to raise awareness and advance change.
	Those people need a framework for all that campaigningwhat Neil Kinnock memorably described in another context as a platform on which to build. The Bill helps to provide another layer on that platform. I want to touch on some of its detailed provisions. I welcome its widening of the definition of disability to relate to people with HIV infection, multiple sclerosis and cancer. There were important discussions across the Floor about the important questions to be resolved on the definition of cancer, but I ask the House to remember two important things about the extensions the Government have proposed in the Bill.
	First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, disabilities do not automatically mean wheelchairs, a point that would be echoed by macular disease sufferers in Blackpool. Incidentally, the Bill gives reassurance to small businessesthere are many in my constituency, not least in the leisure and hotel tradewhich will be concerned about access and the major adjustments that they may have to make under its provisions. Most Members are familiar with the provisions that reasonable attempts should be made to provide access.
	The second important implication of the changes is their meaning for those who may be attempting to claim DLA and other benefits, which can be a mountain for many people to have to climb. I am dealing with the case of a constituent who has throat cancer. He has undergone two severe operations but is still knocked back in his claim for the personal care element of DLA. Although that is very necessary for him, he has found it extremely difficult to claim. The Bill has important implications in that regard.
	I welcome what has been said about the extension of responsibilities in relation to transport, especially the fact that exemptions will no longer apply to infrastructure or service features. We have a strong local interest in Blackpool, where the tram network is not easily accessible for disabled people and where our light-rail transit bid submitted to the Department for Transport stresses the need for access for people with disabilities. In Blackpool, we are making progress on the bus front, and I pay tribute to Blackpool transport services and its managing director for what they have done in that respect.
	There is much more in the Bill about putting the onus on operators to make reasonable adjustments. That is important, but so, too, is advancing understanding and attitudes. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said about that earlier: there is a seamless web between legislation and improving attitudes.
	Let us consider, for example, access to taxis for disabled people who use wheelchairs, most of whom need ramps. People with severe osteoporosis certainly have to use them. As my mother would strongly testify, there is nothing more terrifying and stressful than being physically manhandled into a taxi, however well meaning the taxi driver might be. Attitudes among some, although not all, airline carriers also need to be improved and the Bill sets the context for that.
	The Bill will also be of assistance in changing hearts and minds, and encouraging commitment. As with reassuring people in hotels and guest houses that they need to make reasonable provision, we need to ensure that people in the transport industry, having made reasonable provision, get the improvements road-tested by disabled people to make sure that they do the job that they are intended to do.
	Clause 12 is welcome, in that it brings private clubs with 25 or more members within the scope of the Act. The change in attitude involved here is very important. Not so many years ago, I remember a doughty member of my constituency Labour party who had a disability threatening direct action against a club in my constituency that did not have proper access or toilet facilities. Thankfully, much has now changed in that regard, and those changes will be strengthened even more by the Bill. There are also issues around meetings and activities that take place in historic properties. Again, the Bill has struck the right balance. It does not propose blanket expensive changes, but reasonable attempts to provide access. English Heritage's booklet, Easy Access to Historic Buildings, deals with this matter well.
	I want to pay tribute to the thoughtful and sensible way in which many people in the leisure and tourism industries, particularly those with small guest houses and small businesses, have responded to the proposals. I have seen that among the hoteliers' organisations and   business improvement district co-ordinators in my constituency, as well as in the work that is being done nationally through the various task forces operating through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
	I also want to mention the important extension of the responsibilities and duties of public authorities. The House of Commons briefing note on the Bill talks about clause 3 encouraging participation and positive attitudes, and promoting equality of opportunity. Those are all key elements of the Bill. It is important that public authorities not only assist with needs but provide that assistance as naturally as possible. It should be seen not as a concession but as a right.
	I am privileged to have discussed many of these issues with two party members in my constituency, one of whom is the chair of the disability services organisation to which I referred earlier, and who has also been a non-executive member of the health trust. The other, Nick Gradwell, is a past councillor and a disability activist. Incidentally, neither of those people has wheelchair needsthey have sight impairments.
	The balanced proposals on residential premises in clause 13 are important to a town such as Blackpool that has a large number of rented properties and houses in multiple occupation. The majority of such properties are well run, but some have absentee landlords who do a very poor job. I remember from my casework some terrible examples, ranging from problems with a constituent's guide dog to a case of a landlord being unwilling to make the necessary adjustments for a tenant's children who had disabilities. The explanatory notes make it clear that what the Bill suggests is very reasonable, namely that
	a landlord or manager may be obliged . . . to allow a tenant who has mobility difficulties to leave his rubbish in another place if he cannot access the designated place.
	Clause 16 deals with recognising people's rights and dignity with good will and good sense, and I am particularly pleased that Baroness Hollis tabled the Third Reading amendments to ensure that disability adaptations would be included when a lease entitled a tenant to have such improvements with the landlord's consent.
	Legislation can do only so much, and there will need to be a proactive attitude on the ground. Local co-operation will be needed to make the Bill work. In Blackpool, we have a good relationship between the local council and the landlords' forum, but it is important that such bodies see themselves not as antagonists but as joint enablers when it comes to implementing these measures.
	Clause 15 deals with qualifications and education, and I very much welcome it as a further step towards ensuring that general qualifications bodies do not discriminate against disabled candidates for prescribed qualifications. It will be important, for example, in regard to practical issues such as the provision of ramps for wheelchairs in examination halls. The measure also deals with providing redress to candidates if they are denied those facilities, and I again praise the amendments that were tabled by the Government on Report in the Lords in that regard.
	My experience as a part-time Open university tutor over 20 years involved a number of disabled students. I was full of admiration for them and how they overcame their problems, but I must also pay tribute to the Open university for how it assisted them in that process. That example has not always been followed by other more mainstream and traditional universities, but we are getting there.
	The inclusion of schools has been mentioned this afternoon, and the Disability Rights Commission has also rightly raised it. I know from my own experience that provision for disabled children in schools can be patchynot because of lack of willingness or sympathy, but because of lack of awareness, of a framework and, sometimes, of finance. That has been strongly present in higher and further education, but it is beginning to change. I am convinced that the measures in the Bill will assist that process.
	In that respect, I again pay tribute to a local person, Professor Alan Hurst of the university of Central Lancashire, who has done much to raise awareness of the issues for disabled students in further and higher education. When we had a conversation on that subject, he made an important point to me. He said, In all these areas, there is a threefold process. You start by recognising what the problem is. You then apportion an access officer to begin to deal with it. Then you have to move on and ensure that all staff, all teachers and all lecturers gain awareness of the students' needs. It is not just a question of being able to box it off.
	Those things have had to take place to combat discrimination on grounds of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation, and we need to bear that in mind when we consider the issues in relation to schools, which is why I welcome wholeheartedly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this afternoon about duties for schools. I urge him and other Ministers to take carefully on board the points made by the various bodies that have lobbied in this respect when they draw up the regulations under clause 3.
	I refer to the parliamentary briefing that the DRC has circulated to Members to pick up two important points. It says it is important that we realise that the
	efforts of FE and HE providers to widen access for disabled people will be undermined if schools are not subject to . . . specific duties.
	It continues:
	Specific duties would boost attempts to recruit and retain more disabled teachers and other school staff.
	Those are salient, cogent points. I am sure they will be taken on board when regulations are considered.
	My experience in Blackpool is that children with multiple disabilitiesoften, such children have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism, which can be associated with other disabilitiesand their parents in particular need the maximum framework of support. We would not consider it acceptable to tell schools that they had a general duty of care only to their gay, lesbian and ethnic minority students, or that they must not be proactive or take specific steps to improve the self-worth of such students, or maximise their ability to achieve and to be treated equally. That is an important point to bear in mind when we are thinking about the issues for children with disabilities and drawing up the regulations.
	I want to end by praising all that the Government have done on disabled issues. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who is the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, and all at the Department for Work and Pensions have worked tirelessly, and they have been assisted by all the disability organisations and the DRC. The Bill is another vivid example of the Government's commitment to the active championing of disabled people's equality rights. It is a tribute to the hard work of MPs of all parties, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), secretary of the all-party disablement group, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber today.
	There has been a sea change in attitudes since the pioneering initiative of Alf Morris in the 1970s. As I speak, an ambitious project is under way in Blackpool, involving Heritage Lottery Fund money, to modernise and spruce up Stanley park, which many Members might know. Central to the bid accepted by the HLF, and to the planning, is better access for and use of the park by people with disabilities. The Blackpool Bears, a disability sports club in Blackpool, is central to the planning process. That is real change and real progress.
	I commend the Government on immeasurably strengthening the framework in which those sorts of initiatives can take place by bringing forward this Bill.

Tim Boswell: Like others who have contributed to this debate, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made some constructive points in relation to education and leisure, and was also right to highlight the importance of carers and the large role of all the voluntary organisations in the field of disability which protect the various interests and people concerned. His remarks were entirely consistent with the general tone of this debate and the deserved welcome that the Bill has received from all quarters of the House. I am no exception to that: I am pleased that the Bill is being discussed today. I would have no problems with its passage into legislation, and would not seek to frustrate it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), in a speech of some breadth and complexity, prefaced his remarks with some of the parliamentary history of the scrutiny of this legislation. It is not necessary to revisit all those points, except to say that the House will know that I had Front-Bench responsibilities for these matters for my party before he did, and I had the same experience as he had of trying to persuade the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), to get on with it, and of warning her of what might happen if progress was not made. We now have a pistol to our head. It would be mistaken of Ministers, the Disability Rights Commission or whoever, to assume, in the mode of a reactionary Member of the House prior to the Reform Act of 1832, that the British constitution was so perfect that no possible amendment could be considered. Quite a lot remains to be considered in terms of the various interests, including points that have been made today, and that is why I would very much welcome detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee, although, sadly, that might not happen.
	Perhaps my last contentious point is that what has happened with this Bill has, in a sense, been a paradigm of the marginalisation of disability issues more generally. This Bill comes very much at the end of the queue in relation to consideration by this House, although it is not the only such Bill. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe reminded the House, the last time that we considered such matters strategically was on European election day. I, the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), to whose contribution we look forward, and otherscoincidentally, with a strong representation from the east midlands, partly because we all had all-postal ballotsspoke on that day and felt strongly about the issue. If that happens in the House, perhaps it is merely a paradigm of what happens elsewhere.
	Having taken an interest in disability matters in the House for some six years, apart from those as a constituency Member, my impression is that there are two parties. There is a minority party, which is represented on both sides of the House, who take an active interest and wish to promote these issuesMembers from both sides of the House have said generously that this is an all-party effort, through the disability group and otherwiseand a much larger number of people on whom these matters do not impinge day to day. If it is difficult to create awareness in this place, how much more difficult it is to create it among service providers or users outside. That is part of the role of legislation, to which I will return in a moment.
	In closing my remarks on the legislative history, it would be fair to sayfrom time to time Ministers show generosity, and I note the remarks made by Baroness Hollis in the other place about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995that this is not an oppositionist issue.
	We are not emerging from darkness into light. Social progress in this country, in many contexts, is secured through the progressive activities and influences of different Governments building on each other's experience. If we can claim credit for the 1995 Act, the Minister can equally claim credit for the Disability Rights Commission, for the extension to education in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, and indeed for this Bill. There is no need to argue about it; we are on the same side in seeking progressive improvement.
	We should also record our gratitude to those who have helped to lay the foundations for these additional changes: the Disability Rights Task Force and the Disability Rights Commission. When the commission was first established, I was, as it were, the Minister's opposite number. I proceeded with a reasonable degree of healthy scepticism, needing to be convinced; and I was convincedthat the commission was doing a good job in a sensitive way, and was an active force for good. I say that unequivocally, because I believe it to be true. Along with the task force and its well known report, it has looked at the operation of the 1995 Act and improved it.
	I hope the Minister will not think I am trying to put her down when I say that a parliamentary analogy could be drawn with Ministers' alleged argument in favour of the European constitution. Some of the Bill is a tidying-up exercise to deal with areas that have not been properly covered, butin a spirit of bipartisanship, or multi-partisanshipI concede that it makes at least two major advances. First, I think we are all pleased to see that real progress has been made in improving transport. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who spoke interestingly from direct experience of disability, rightly said that mobility was an important component of the empowerment of disabled people and the improvement of their lot. Secondly, clause 3 and other parts of the Bill give public authorities a general duty to promote disability equality and the interests of disabled people.
	Those are important issues, but the transport issue is not straightforward. It is fair to say that a private sector provider of goods and services is bound by reasonable adjustments. As disability interests have been able to demonstrate, there are ways of making such adjustments that are affordable and sensible, and I would endorse such an approach. In the case of major public sector provision, however, it can be quite expensive, and objectives may occasionally overlap or clash.
	There are only two railway stations in my constituency, both very small. One is Kings Sutton, the other Long Buckby. One is unmanned; the other has someone there in the mornings. They are both very much Victorian stations. The cross-line access at Kings Sutton is soon to be improved, but the problem with both stations is that the platforms are rather short. The problem with altering rolling stockin the entirely commendable and desirable interests of mobilityis that it tends to require more space. Trains may have to be longer to retain the same capacity. Trains are getting longer in any case, to meet the capacity of stations. Unless and until single-door control is introduced, it will be difficult to achieve a service at those stations. If they are closed for that or another reason, such as the rather poor access arrangements, the alternative is to go to a railhead in the town, which may not serve the interests of disabled people. I rehearse those as the sorts of difficulty that may be encountered, which is why I understand that Ministers will want some time to get this done. I hope that they are determined to press on and to make sure that it is done.
	As regards the general duty, I am reassured by, and take comfort from, the fact that although there were some stern duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, it seems to have worked well. I have never had to deal with an adverse case or report from a constituent, and it is reassuring that it is possible to produce such duties without a backlash, if I might put it that way.
	There are some technical differences between disability duties and awareness on the one hand and those related to racism and sexism. To use an analogy, it has always struck me that the difference between racism and disability compliance and awareness is a bit like the difference between digital and analogue. Broadly, either one is a racist or one is not, and there is a clear decision, one way or the other. In relation to disability awareness, the situation is more complex because the questions tend to include whether adjustments were considered, made and reasonable. There is much more feedback in terms of whether the action taken is appropriate.
	In relation to gender preference, there is an intermediate position because the Minister, from her experience of employment law, will know that it is possible to be judged to have discriminated indirectly through for example the differential operation of the qualifying period for an employment tribunal, in terms of the length of time one has been at work. These are complex issues and it would be wrong and unnecessaryfrom the experience of race relations legislationto seek to run away from giving the duties to public bodies, which I welcome.
	I appreciate that the Equality Bill has now been given its Second Reading date and I rather anticipate making a contribution on that Bill as well. It would therefore be inappropriate to make a Second Reading speech on that subject now. I have listened to the exchanges and various interventions on the DRC's attitude to the Equality Commission, and we have made a good deal of progress. However, in considering that legislation, as and when it moves towards the statute book, it is necessary to make sure that the particular features of disability are properly covered. There is already provision for a commissioner, but there is also a need for a body of expertise and the resources to meet the needs of, as well as safeguards for, disability interests in a single commission. No one would be happy with a situation where we legislated to put everything together and then found that none of the single strands was being adequately catered for.
	There is greater complexity in relation to the nature of reasonable adjustments as against having a simple on-off test for whether or not someone is compliant in relation to discrimination matters. There is more work to be done there and the DRC and some of the studies to which Ministers have referred will help to take that agenda forward.
	An interesting issue that interacts with the one of public duties is that in disability matters, even more than in other equality issues, there is an interaction of different providers. It may be that a particular provider wants to do something and is perfectly prepared to comply with the duty, but other aspects of the jigsaw are not put together. We all know from our constituents how difficult it is for people to deal with disability issues. There could be legal complications for an individual provider accused of not seeking to promote the interests of disabled people, because even if the situation was not their fault and somebody else was responsible, the service, in effect, would not be being provided, regardless of whose legal fault it was.
	The second issue, about which I feel very strongly, is that we need to pay much more attention to the different forums of enforcement and the relative difficulty of carrying out enforcement within them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South mentioned the Scottish legal system and the sheriff court. She clearly implied that that was a more difficult process than using a special educational needs tribunal, which I can understand. Of course, under English legislation, schools are dealt with through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, but further education and higher education are not, so a distinction remains in that regard. A few years ago, the Royal National Institute of the Blind did some work on the part 2 duties relating to employment. Such duties are dealt with by the tribunal, whereas part 3 duties relating to goods and services are dealt with by the county court. It seems highly implausible that there is more discrimination in one area than in the other, so that issue has to be looked at.
	Finally, there is the question of bringing all this together in a single body of legislation, taking into account people's human rights. The Government are seeking to amalgamate the various institutions and, I concede, trying to preserve disability as one of the essential strands. However, we need to look at the wider human rights agenda. I will offer for free to the Government an insight prompted by a former Labour Secretary of State, Dick Crossman, some 40 years ago. He said of rents, What we want is rents that are fair. Public bodies, in dealing with citizenswhether or not they have a particular disability or equality issueshould be expected to treat them decently. How one puts that into law and adjudicates on it I do not know, but there is still a great deal to be done in that regard.
	I acknowledge that, here, the law is an important participant, and it has two functions, the first of which is declaratory. Its first function is to say that we as a society are not prepared to put up with some of our citizens being treated as second-class citizens. Its second function is to deal not just with businesses that make honest efforts, but in particular with those that say, We do not want to get involved in all this; it is not for us, you know. It must make sure that that attitude is rooted out and if necessary punished. But at the same time it must try to encourage those who want to help to take a positive attitude, to take advice, and above all to consider the necessary adjustments that must be made, and to take forward the agenda of serving our disabled and other minority constituents. So law has a function, but I advise the House against saying that this Bill will in itself transform the situation. Although it will help and be another brick in the edifice, it will not conclude the building.
	I do not often quote others commenting on me, but I was rather proud to be described in a parliamentary sketch of some 18 months agothe phrase related to another aspect of the equality agenda, and I enjoyed it after I thought about itas relentlessly inclusionist. I am quite happy about that, because we should be relentlessly inclusionist; indeed, I hope and think that everybody in this Chamber is so. We should work to ensure that it becomes a matter of course that all our citizens are empowered, included and given the opportunity to give of their best: to make their own contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of this country, and to take all the benefits that we take for granted. We do not necessarily need to treat them in a special way to do that. The more we can approximate to that situation, the better. We need the underpinning of law, but we also need the right assumptions and attitudes to become a normal part of life. I am not a MarxistI would not be sitting on these Opposition Benches if I werethough I might be more of a sceptic, but if we could see all the business surrounding equality withering away, no one would be happier than me.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my semi-Marxist friend for giving way. Perhaps he can help me with a particular concern about clause 10, which deals with discriminatory advertisements. If a football manager were to advertise for players for a football team, could such an advertisement imply that the applications will be determined by the extent to which the applicant does not have a disability?

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that matter, but I am conscious that he is more legally qualified than me. My answer ad interim is that if the Bill had a proper Committee stage, we could properly thrash the matter out and ensure that we got it right.
	To take my right hon. Friend's point a little wider, the one thing that would discredit all this, to borrow from the language of race relations, is the Scotch porridge case, where people find themselves in ridiculous circumstances that defy common sense as they see it. What we need is an agenda to promote the rights of disabled people, without pillorying those who are trying to do their best to meet it.

Maria Eagle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who says that he is not a Marxist. I am a Marxist, but of the Groucho tendency. The intervention of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) ignores the fact that many disabled people play sport very well, even sometimes professionally. The answer is that it would be a bit dodgy for a football manager to advertise in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for helping to clarify that matter. We look forward to debating it further in Committee, if and when the Committee stage takes place.

Tom Levitt: The reference to Groucho Marx reminds me of a sketch by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore that raises this very issue. A one-legged actor applies for the role of Tarzan, leading Peter Cook to say to Dudley Moore, I have nothing against your right leg; the problem isneither have you.

Tim Boswell: I had forgotten that, but I have a horrible feeling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if we extend this line of argument, we may get into dead parrots, at which point we would probably be marginalising at least one party in the House.
	To conclude on a serious point, we should be relentlessly inclusionist, we should look for every opportunity to advance the real interests of disabled people, and above all, we should make all that mainstream rather than a self-conscious exercise by a limited number of people in the House or elsewhere. To accomplish that, we need the right balance between sanction and encouragement, and between the law and good practice.
	That is in no sense a cop-out for the law, which must be there as an underpinning, as I said, but I do not want anyone in the business world, for example, to settle merely for compliance with the law. It is perfectly proper to expect businesses, having made their reasonable adjustments, to consider what else they can do. They may well be pleasantly surprised when they do so, which applies not just to disability but in respect of the wider equality agenda. If a company is prepared to examine its customer base and try to ensure that its work force mirrors that base, it is likely to be more commercially successful, especially when dealing with the general public, than it would have been if it had walked away from these problems. It may not be easy to do, but many companies of different sizes are prepared to consider that option.
	Above all, we do not want just a tick-box exercise saying we have done it, and we do not want a parliamentary tick-box exercise, either, saying we have legislated; that is the end of the matter; now get on with it. There needs to be a wider public debate about how we take the agenda forward.
	In the end, the Bill is about treating people decently and enabling them to unlock their power and influence. I feel very strongly about a number of matters that I have to deal with, which tend to bear on the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. If we can make a convincing connection between the moral and business cases, there will be a chance of getting something done.

Tom Levitt: It is always a pleasure to take part in a debate with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). As we have reminded each other on several occasions, it is more than 20 years since we first debated against each other. When I say that it was on the sixth form circuit, I do not suggest that we were in the sixth form 20 years ago: in fact, we were visiting sixth forms to present the respective positions of our parties. Even then, he was relentlessly inclusionist and, having seen him in action in the House in our time here together, I sometimes think that his compassion and values are more suitable for the Labour Benches than for the Opposition Benches.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Daventry will not take much issue with what I am about to say. In 18 years in office, the previous Conservative Government managed one piece of legislation in respect of disability, but the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was singularly ineffective in a great many ways. It did not contain any powers of enforcement, nor establish a commission for disabled people. In fact, the Ministers responsible for the 1995 Act fought tooth and nail against proposals to include any enforcement powers.
	I recall amazing scenes, when it was clear that one of the Ministers involvedwhose daughter was renowned for leading the disabled rights campaignsometimes found himself in a great pickle. He could see the strength of the argument in favour of establishing a commission, but was obliged to fight against it.
	The 1995 Act talked about disability discrimination but contained almost no reference to transport, which is the key to accessing all other services. Bizarrely, the Act made it obligatory for station platforms to be accessible to disabled people, but not trains. In that respect, it was a charter for disabled train spotters: it was certainly not one for disabled travellers.
	The 1995 Act completely excluded education, and that omission is something that this Government have had to put right. Also, it failed to address the problem of people's attitude to, and understanding of, disability. That problem is at the heart of the barriers between disabled people and their full civil rights. Those barriers must be broken down.

Richard Spring: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is going down this route, as it is not in the spirit of the debate so far. Like him, I was in the House when the 1995 Act was passed. I can confirm categorically that it had a considerable impact, in more than narrow legislative terms, as it helped disabled people in our communities to resolve problems of access, and so on. I hope, therefore, that he will not pursue that line of argument.

Tom Levitt: My point is that the 1995 Act contained huge gaps that need to be filled. I shall say more about them in a moment, but I accept that a process of evolution was under way. I do not understand why the Government of the day committed themselves so firmly to opposing private Member's Bills on disability discrimination put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). Their Bills were all very sensible, but they were all thwarted.
	I also mentioned in a previous intervention the long delays in the DDA, such that parts of the Act, had we not addressed them, would still not have been implemented even now. They include part III on access to goods and services. Indeed, as that legislation stood in 1995 in terms of employment rights for disabled people, it affected only about 6 per cent. of all businessesI think that that figure is right. The small firms exemption meant that the vast majority of businesses were not obliged to take the needs of disabled employees and prospective employees into account.
	The DDA set up the National Disability Council, which gave some disabled people a forum, but I do not believe that that body, ably led by David Grayson, would ever have been as effective as the disability rights taskforce. When that was created, as soon as this Government came to office, it had a momentum to it, precisely because the doors were then seen to be open to ensuring that civil rights for disabled people became a reality.
	I was privileged to serve on the Committees that examined the Disability Rights Commission Bill and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. In their turn, they both added to the power of disabled people to achieve their civil rights and plugged holes in the DDA. We also implemented part III of the DDA and removed the small firms exemption, so that 100 per cent. of businesses are now covered by the rules.
	The Bill addresses many of the remaining gaps in provision. I am particularly pleased to see that councillors are included for the first time. I actually wrote a pamphlet on the subject of councillors and disabled access in 1995, so I was 10 years before my time, but I am glad to see that its recommendations will now be enforced.
	The Bill also addresses transport. Again, there must be a lead-in time, which must be a compromise between the ability of the providers of transport services to respond and the urgency of fulfilling those civil rights needs. I believe that we have got the balance about right on that.
	The Bill removes many exemptions from the previous legislation and, to pick up the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), I am pleased about private clubs. It is fair to say that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), after his private Member's Bill did not succeed either last year or the year before, can nevertheless be pleased to see how the spirit of that proposal has been introduced into the Bill that we see before us.
	The duty to promote good relations is essential, and the duty to promote the civil rights of disabled people exists on not just local but all public authorities. I am sure that, considering how the debate has gone in the past 10 years, we have seen the cart before the horse. A momentum already exists, but the Bill will ensure that no public authority will lag behind.
	Alongside the civil rights legislation that we have had over the years, we have changed part M of the building regulations to make buildings more disabled accessible. The new deal for disabled people has helped 200,000 people have the dignity of work, and now for the first time more than 50 per cent. of disabled people are in employment and many more are seeking opportunities to earn through work. The vast improvements in the funding for the access-to-work schemes also enabled that to come about.
	There are still some holes in the legislation, and I would like to mention three of them. One relates to an issue that I wanted to push strongly in the scrutiny Committee, which is the situation of volunteers. I understand why the Bill may not be the most appropriate place to include provisions on that, but it must be said that we have rights for employees and prospective employees who are disabled, and the role of volunteers nowadays in many organisations is very much akin to that of employees. Many volunteers are doing work experience and many are gaining experience as part of achieving a qualification. Many have an understanding with their employers that is close to being a contract of employment. However, to argue at this stage that we should extend the disability rights legislation to cover volunteers would ignore the fact that sex equality legislation and race equality legislation do not apply to volunteers. Perhaps the Equality Bill would be a better place in which to ensure comprehensive protection for volunteers against unjustified discrimination when their role is akin to employees. I was pleased to have had the opportunity in the scrutiny Committee to explore that possibility and to make the case for extending disability discrimination legislation to volunteers.
	We heard earlier about the scrutiny Committee's statistics and, in addition to the contributions of its members, the quality and enthusiasm of the witnesses, including my hon. Friend the Minister, who appeared before it were very high. That was the only time I have been a member of a scrutiny Committee and it was rewarding, fulfilling and, looking back, valuable. It was appropriate for that Committee to scrutinise the Bill.
	The second matter that I want to refer to is housing, about which the scrutiny Committee raised issues and made recommendations, although many of them were not taken forward. I am pleased that matters relating to common areas in shared properties will be reviewed. I want to make one suggestion, which would not require legislation. We have part M of the building regulations, we have disabled facilities grantswhich cover funding for extensions and alterations to propertiesto set standards and the concept of lifetime homes has become a reality in the design of properties. Can we be assured that the standards that those three different criteria apply to those three different concepts are consistent and that lifetime homes, disabled facilities grants and part M all seek to point developments and alterations in the same direction and to produce the same level of access?
	I heard what hon. Members have said about not having a Second Reading debate on the Equality Bill now, but I am pleased with the debate on the new equality commission. I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) when, as Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, and subsequently at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, she was responsible for the early days of that legislation and the article 13 legislation, so I have been involved in the debate on the equality commission for some time. I was originally a sceptic and did not believe that it would be possible to take on board the historic and particular needs of the three existing strands for which commissions exist and merge them with the three article 13 strands. However, I was wrong. I said that there had to be clear horizontal and vertical structures so that if I were being discriminated against by harassment, irrespective of whether it was because I was disabled or because of my gender and so on, I should have access to the best legal advice on harassment from the commission. That horizontal strand is just as important as saying that a disabled person should have access to people who are experts on disability.
	I now look forward with optimism because the process has worked. In particular, the views of disabled people and the Disability Rights Commission have been taken on board in moving towards the equality commission.
	I want to celebrate two other Government achievements because I have had a close personal involvement in both. One is the roll-out of digital hearing aids in the NHS, managed by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People at a time when I was a trustee of that organisation. That was an excellent example of partnership between Government and the voluntary sector and will be seen as a real emancipation of people with hearing impairments. The other is the recognition of British sign language. The Government not only recognised it as a language, but provided funding to give some reality to what is meant by recognition. I looked back through Hansard and discovered that I called for such recognition in an Adjournment debate in 1999, but better late than never. Recognition is an excellent step forward for the 50,000 people in this country whose first language is sign language.
	If we look back 10 years, not many people could be said to be public role models for disabled people. That situation has changed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the former Home Secretary, is one example and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is another, but I wish to put on record a few other names. The reputation of Peter White, the Radio 4 presenter who is blind, as a journalist has grown and grown over the years. People such as Heather Mills have taken on high profile positions, not necessarily on disability issuesrightly, in many cases. They have shown that disabled people can be in the limelight and carry it off. I know a little about stand-up comedybut that is a story for another dayand there are now several disabled comedians, including a deaf comedian, who are well established on the circuit. Of course, only in the past few days, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson has had her contribution to public life recognised. I also welcome the fact that as we all pull together towards London 2012, it is being made clear that it is a bid not only for the Olympics but for the disabled Olympics.
	That all shows that public opinion has moved on in 10 years and perhaps, as the hon. Member for Daventry suggested, the 1995 Act opened a few doors. It could have done more, but we have now made up for many of the omissions. In that respect, I regard the Bill as a consolidating measure that will make progress in some areas and put right some matters that had not been put right in the past. I am certain that every party in the House will co-operate to ensure that the Bill gets a fair and appropriate hearing in the next few weeks and that the ambitions expressed today that it become legislation as quickly as possible reach fruition.

Richard Spring: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am pleased to do so and I know that various disability organisations are delighted that this debate is taking place and we are making progress. As we have heard from many hon. Members this afternoon, there is a real desire to see the legislation on the statute book.
	It is curious how one becomes interested in a subject. In the case of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), who spoke movingly about his mother, the cause was his personal family conditions. It is not something that has affected my own family, but in 1992 when I became a Member of Parliament I had a secretary who was quite severely disabled. It is extraordinary how the facilities in the Palace of Westminster, however imperfect, have moved on in the 13 years since I have been an MP. It was seeing life through my secretary's eyes that gave me an abiding interest in this subject. I saw the difficulties that life presented for her in many respects in this particular place of employment, as well as the bureaucracy that she had to face on many different levels, and that is why I have continued to take an interest in the subject.
	That is why in 1995, when the original Disability Discrimination Act was passed, I felt it was a welcome step forward, and I certainly supported it because it was the first attempt by a British Government to legislate on the concept and principle of disability discrimination. It gave disabled people a right not to be discriminated against in employment and a right of access to goods,   facilities, financial services and the transport infrastructure.
	I entirely take the point made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) that, as we look back over 10 years, we can see that the 1995 Act was imperfect and that there are gaps to fill. Indeed, that process has moved on, but we can equally say that it was important legislation that changed attitudes, and it was certainly radical in dealing with discrimination against disabled people. I therefore have some pride in the then Government's achievement at that time. When I saw for myself the results of that legislation, I became interested and started to make contacts as an MP with groups that were speaking for various causes related to disability. I was able, as I know many hon. Members were also able to do, to assist them in achieving results such as wheelchair access and in changing the culture of understanding so that people became aware of the needs of people with disabilities. That was an important moment.
	Today, however, after seeing the effects of the 1995 Act over what is quite a lengthy period, it is certainly clear that we need to amend the existing legislation to meet the considerable challenges that people with disabilities must overcome. It is disappointing, however, that the introduction of the Bill has been left quite late, although, of course, I support it in principle. I know that my Opposition colleagues and, indeed, others would have valued extra time to consider the Bill, and in a sense, this is something of a missed opportunity.
	Many hon. Members have lived with disability at first hand, whether directly or indirectly, and are perhaps in a unique or special position to scrutinise the Bill with the expertise that arises from their own experience, but many of us who are not in that position may nevertheless have had temporary experience of mobility problems. Others will have regularly accompanied wheelchair users and people with mobility problems and have experiences of the difficulties that disabled people facea point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). That is why the provisions in the Bill that relate to transport are so welcome. Inaccessible transport has a major impact on disabled people's independence, social participation and employability. Some 60 per cent. of households with a disabled member do not have access to a car, so access to the public transport system is a crucial part of many disabled people's lives. Of course, that is doubly the case in rural areas, where public transport is limited. The Bill represents a step towards a public transport system that is more accessible for all disabled people.
	Many hon. Members may have spoken to representatives of the disabilities charity consortiumthe DCCabout the Bill's contents. As we know, the DCC is an informal coalition consisting of Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Mind, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and Scope. They, like me, believe that constructive debates in the other place have resulted in a much improved Bill and some very valuable results for disabled people. However, they still have some concerns that relate to transport, and I should like to make these points now in the hope of encouraging further response.
	Although the rail and bus industries will have to comply with a legislative framework, the aviation and shipping industries currently operate voluntary codes of practice on accessibility. The DCC believes that the voluntary codes have not proved fully effective in improving services for disabled people. The regulation-making powers in the Bill will allow the Government to make both those codes statutory. Indeed, the Joint Committee that considered the draft Disability Discrimination Bill reported that
	The Committee received a significant amount of evidence which suggests that voluntary compliance is not currently effective.
	I understand that the Government wish to wait until later this year to see the results of research on compliance with voluntary arrangements that are designed to secure better access to air and sea transport for disabled people. If that is still the case, will the Minister comment on that specific matter?
	There are numerous examples of airlines and ferry companies acting thoughtlessly and inappropriately towards disabled passengers and thus causing a great deal of embarrassment and anxiety, so that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. Will the Minister explain the situation regarding the exemption from statutory regulations and tell us how she thinks the matter can be addressed? I share the DCC's concerns about the effectiveness of existing disability equality training programmes in the transport industry. It is important that people who work on buses, trains and the underground are fully aware of the needs of disabled passengers. Perhaps the Minister will also comment on that matter during her winding-up speech.
	Disabilities are not always visible. I was pleased that a modest Opposition amendment on depression was agreed to on Report in the House of Lords. Mental health is often overlooked in anti-discrimination policies and rules, so I congratulate my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale on tabling the amendment. I echo the appeal made by the DCC and
	urge the Government to retain the amendment and do not do so simply because of the time constraints that have been imposed on the Bill but also because they recognise the case for the amendment.
	Under section 1 of the 1995 Act, a person's impairment must have
	a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities
	to fit the definition of a disability. An impairment is defined as long-term if it has lasted for at least 12 months, or if it is likely to have a substantial effect for at least 12 months. The provisions in the Act designed to cover recurrence have not been effective in the case of depression, although I know that the Secretary of State commented on that and I understand that he talked about a Green Paper on the matter. However, according to the website www.psychdirect.com, the risk of recurrence of an episode of depression within a five-year period is as much as 70 per cent.
	Depression carries a huge stigma, so it is important that the Bill recognise that. Let me quote from a briefing sent to me from the DCC:
	People who have recovered from an episode of depression can find that they never find paid work again yet their ability to work is not reduced in any way except by prejudice. A recent study found that where two job applications, one disclosing a diagnosis of diabetes the other one of depression, were submitted to 200 personnel managers, the 'applicant' with depression had significantly reduced chances of employment. Discrimination can short-circuit the process of recovery for those who have undergone depression, it can undermine self-esteem and exacerbate the illness. This destructive cycle brings about, above all, suffering for individuals, but also a loss of talent for society and cost to the public purse in health/social care and welfare benefits.
	In light of that compelling argument, I ask the Minister to build on the comments made by the Secretary of State and reflect on the amendment tabled by Lord Skelmersdale, which deserves to be supported.
	The final aspect of the Bill on which I wish to comment relates to the way the Government have declined to give a firm commitment to include schools in the specific disability equality duties in the Bill. The Secretary of State spoke about anti-discrimination and a general duty in the public sector that there should be proportionality, which is absolutely understood. However, he implied that such specific duties in the Bill would place an extra burden on schools. Teaching unions, such as the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, have stated during consultation that they would welcome the specific duties in Bill being applied to schools. According to Ofsted and a recent report from the Prime Minister's strategy unit, some schools are failing disabled children. Just one of the many saddening statistics from the Disability Rights Commission is that 27 per cent. of disabled people aged between 16 and 24 have no qualifications whatever. That compares with 12 per cent. of non-disabled people at the same age. The Government have recognised that more needs to be done to support disabled children in school.
	We are all agreed that the public sector duty at the heart of the legislation will make a tremendous difference for disabled people. I am told by disability organisations, however, that it will be very hard in practice for schools to comply with their general duty without having specific duties in the Bill to guide them.

Maria Eagle: The Secretary of State said in his speech that the specific duties would apply to schools.

Richard Spring: The difficulty lies in the difference between what is contained in the Bill and what will be done in regulation. Will the Minister clarify that point, because there is some lack of understanding, and not only in my mind?
	Such specific duties would ensure that schools have to produce disability equality schemes involving disabled people and monitor and report on their progress against those schemes. Without the schemes, it will be very difficult for schools and the Government to monitor how schools are meeting the general equality duty.
	I know of schools that have worked hard to include disabled pupils. I have visited a number of such schools in my constituency, and I applaud the head teachers, other teaching staff and governors for their efforts. The best schools have been taking that approach successfully for some time. I have become aware of one head teacher who was keen to maintain an ethos in which children responded to and interacted with each other as equal members of the community and as their friends, rather than as disabled or non-disabled pupils.
	In my own schoolI look back at this with some degree of surprisethe head teacher, even in those days, took an extraordinarily far-sighted view on including young people with disabilities. When I think about the fellow pupils who had disabilities, I reflect on what a satisfying experience it was for them to be in such an environment. For the majority who did not have a disability, the issue never occurred to us; the approach that was taken was an act of normality. That is what I saw with my own eyes in a much more limited way than now. I am glad that the culture has moved on considerably, but I have seen that the idea of inclusion where possible works. I hope that it can continue and be carried much further, as it is a desirable objective.
	Commendable practice of the sort that I have described is not, however, consistent. It is exactly the sort of activity that would be included in the disability equality schemes required by specific duties. Again, I ask for clarification, and I know that the Minister will respond. In November 2002, the DRC surveyed the aspirations and experiences of young disabled people. It found that many had low expectations about educational and employment opportunities. Almost half those interviewed said that they had experienced problems at schools for reasons related to their impairment, and 38 per cent. of respondents said that they had been bullied. Some 11 per cent. of those surveyed had been unable to get access to all school resources, and many also said that they had missed out on school sports or trips. A significant number felt that they had been actively discouraged by their teachers to consider higher education. We are aware that schools are required to have accessibility plans to try to combat such problems, but there is no requirement for them to evaluate the effect of the plans. The Government cannot tell us what effects such plans have had. In any case, Ofsted research demonstrates that 50 per cent. of schools do not even have the plans in the first place.
	Furthermore, the drive of Government policy is to join up the different agencies dealing with children. The Children Act 2004 will extend the functions of some schools to include essential child care services, and many children's services in health and social care already deliver through schools. How does the Minister respond to claims from disability organisations that it is nonsensical that these services, which are delivered in schools, will be covered by specific duties while the schools will not?

Maria Eagle: The Secretary of State has said that schools will be covered by specific duties.

Richard Spring: I can only ask the Minister again: when she makes her winding-up speech, will she make it clearfor it is not clear in my mindthat such a provision is in the Bill and part of the relevant regulations? Schools make up about half of all public bodies, so it would appear strange to exclude them. Thirty-two of the organisations consulted felt that imposing specific duties on schools was important and that the issue of disability in schools had to be at the forefront of that. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
	This Bill is wholly welcome; it closes all sorts of loopholes that needed to be closed. As we reflect on the past 10 years, we see that a considerable amount of progress has been made, but there are still areas to be addressed. I echo what has been said by so many other hon. Members this afternoon in hoping that we can complete the proceedings on this Bill as soon as possible.

Tim Loughton: I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my two ha'p'orth to this debate and to welcome the Bill. I echo many of the excellent contributions already made by hon. Members.
	First, I should declare an interest as chairman of the Conservative disability group. I work closely with various groups in my constituency and in wider west Sussexparticularly with the West Sussex Association for the Disabled and the West Sussex Disabilities Network. I am vice-president of my local Mind branch and vice-chairman of the all-party group on autism.
	The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) represents a seaside constituency, as I do. As he said, in such constituencies we havenot least because of the age profile of the populationsan above-average number of people with disabilities, not only physical disabilities but many mental disabilities: dementia-related disabilities such as Alzheimer's.
	I should like to pick up on a few of the comments made by hon. Members. Typically, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a very pertinent pointin this case, on how we view people who have disabilities. As she said, too many people call disabled people the disabled and think that all they really need is a place to play draughts. That same tokenism applies to elderly people, be it in Worthing or anywhere elseapparently, all they need is somewhere to play bingoand to the young, whose problems of boredom can apparently be solved by building a skateboard park.
	There is tokenism in all sections of society. That is why it is so important that the Bill should not be about tokenism, but about real action for disabled people, who are, first and foremost, peoplepeople who happen to have disabilities and who enjoy and dislike certain things, just like anybody else in this Chamber or outside it. We are not here to discuss tokenism, but real measures that give real access to people who do not have it as fully as they might, but who have every right to it and should have every expectation of it.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) said, this long-awaited Bill is about social justice and builds on the good work done in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We are foolish not to be doing much more to help people with disabilities. As hon. Members have said, people with disabilities often represent a great, untapped source of talent and potential and it is a waste not to tap into that. I echo the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombealthough I shall not discuss them at such lengthabout the time that it has taken to get to this stage of the Bill. There were six and a half years between the Labour Government's 1997 commitment to produce such legislation and its appearance in the form of a draft Bill.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we dealt with 70 per cent. of our manifesto commitment on inclusion before the Bill was introduced because we could do so without primary legislation, so he is not being entirely accurate.

Tim Loughton: The premise on which the Government made their disability proposals was that a new Bill, such as the one we are debating, was necessary to consolidate existing legislation and to take forward the disability reform programme. It has taken a long time and it is especially unfortunate that we are discussing the measure at the fag end of this Parliament. All the supporters of the Bill, inside and outside this place, have expressed concern that at best there will be minimal time for scrutiny and at worst that time will not be sufficient before the axe of the likely general election falls. None of us wants the Bill to go to waste, but that is not to say that more scrutiny should not be undertaken to improve it further.
	We all agree on the need to consolidate legislation on disability discrimination 10 years on from the original Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) when he had ministerial responsibilities for disabilities. I applaud the work done in another place, especially by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale, who described the measure as
	a needed Bill which could be made better.[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 2004; Vol. 667, c. 675.]
	Many of the actions of the upper House have made the Bill better, and I hope that the Government will respect those amendments.
	Much can be improved through better regulation and the Minister rightly pointed out the good work that has been done through regulation rather than through primary legislation. I do not want to diminish that in any way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, all Governments can take pride in, and claim credit for, building on a progressive foundation, started in 1995, for a much better deal for people with disabilities.
	Definitions of disabilities, the way we treat disabilities and our social vision of disabilities have changed enormously just in the 10 years since the original Act, and it is right that legislation should keep up with both changing attitudes and changing physical and mental conditions. It is not merely about the visible physical illnesses with which people too often purely associate disability; it is about a whole range of mental conditions. I am pleased that they are mentioned in the Bill and I shall return to that point.
	We need to be realistic about what is workable, however, and what will take business and the community at large with it, given that many of the new duties under the 1995 Act came into force only last October due to the long lead-in time. Several Members commented on that. I certainly agree with the proposed long lead-in times for some of the public transport considerations. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) was right to welcome the emphasis on public transport, which is so essential for many people with disabilities, especially in rural areas.
	I welcome the amendments made by Conservative peers to put an end date of 2020 on the Bill, although I should have liked that to be rather sooner. I reiterate the point that I made earlier about the lifetime of rail franchises. It is unacceptable that our constituents and those of us who use the train to travel between our homes and our constituencies still have to travel on slam-door trains from the 1950s. That still happens all too often on the south coast line, despite the fact that we have been through at least two train operators since privatisation. Any new bidders for the franchise should do so on the basis that from day one of their operation all their rolling stock will be disability-friendly and that slam-door trains will disappear, because their demise is long overdue. They are exceedingly unfriendly to anyone with any sort of disability. The obscenity of people in wheelchairs having to travel in the guard's van like a piece of luggage is also an entirely outdated concept that we should reject sooner than 2020.
	A couple of years ago, a constituent of mine who is a civil servant was travelling up to London on one of the local services from Worthing. She is in a wheelchair. She was eventually able to arrange for someone to get her on to the train at Worthing station, which has a ramp, although it is not always available. However, the station in London at which she wanted to get off did not have a disability ramp available on the northbound platform. She had to go all the way up to Luton in order to get off the train. I am afraid that she did not spend much time there, although I am sure that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) would agree that she would have had a delightful time if she had.
	My constituent then had to come all the way back to the London station at which she had originally intended to get off, where there was a disability ramp only on the southbound platform. That is absolute nonsense. Whoever was responsible had picked on the wrong person, however, because it so happened that my constituent was a member of the Government's Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, so the matter was reported straight away to the appropriate powers. That sort of thing still happens far too often, however. We need much greater clarity and transparency in the way in which new rolling stock and new disability-friendly public transport is coming on stream. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk mentioned some of the atrocities that take place when people in wheelchairs or people with other disabilities try to get on to cheap flights, which really are not geared up for dealing with the large market of disabled people who enjoy going on holiday abroad just as much as anyone else.
	I welcome the measures in the Bill that deal with local authorities and other public bodies. The Local Government Association has said in its briefing, however, that it wants to
	ensure that the administrative burdens resulting from this bill will be kept to a minimum. Where possible we would like to see timescales and processes aligned to allow authorities to develop generic equality schemes.
	The LGA also believes that
	the provision to bring councillors within the scope of the DDA is long overdue, and we are happy to see clarity now given to the category of law occupied by disabled councillors. Local councillors will be better able to perform their community leadership role if there is no ambiguity about their treatment in law.
	I entirely agree with that.
	In many cases, local authorities could do more, and that is often a problem of funding. On several occasions, however, I have pushed a constituent around Worthing or other towns in my constituency in a wheelchair, just to see how easy it was to find disabled rampsto go into the tourist information office, for example. I have found ramps set at an angle of about 45. It was a struggle for me to push a little old lady in a wheelchair up such a ramp; imagine what it would be like for a little old lady pushing her husband, for example. It would be completely impossible. The provision of such ramps is tokenism; in practice, they are not doing the job that they are supposed to do. Local authorities could be more proactive in having local audits of disability access. It should be a question not of saying, We've got the ramp; we can tick the box, but of asking, Does that ramp actually work? Why aren't people using it? How can we improve it?
	In places such as Worthing, several people have mentioned problems relating to gaining access to the beach. Disabled people enjoy the beach just as much as the rest of us, but just let them try to get on to it. At the moment, a very large investment is being made in the sea defences in my constituency, which I very much welcome. This has involved large quantities of shingle being bulldozed up to the beach, the construction of rock groynes, and so on. That is fantastic for keeping the sea out of my constituents' front gardens, but very bad for enabling people with disabilities to get on to the beach to enjoy the facilities there. It has proved nigh on impossible for me to get the Environment Agency, the local council or whoever to devise a scheme whereby peoplenot just those with disabilities or those with extreme disabilities who may be in a wheelchair, but elderly people with sticks and parents with children in pushchairscan gain access to facilities that we all like to enjoy, such as the beach. A lot more can be done.
	We must also consider problems with social services departments, which are spending a lot of money and finding their budgets enormously squeezed. That is the case in West Sussex, where there was no real increase in spending on social services this year. They are, quite rightly, having to spend money to make adaptations so that people with disabilities can stay in their homes. Government policy is for more people to be able to stay in their homes longerthat is absolutely right, if it can be achievedrather than, as the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, previously Secretary of State for Health, have described, elderly people being banged up in residential homes.
	Well, it is horses for courses. Residential or nursing homes provide an excellent essential service for those people for whom it is appropriate. For those who are able, it is fantastic to be able to stay at home for longer and to have that encouraged, but this can happen in practice only if those facilities are available in homes so that people can look after themselves and have the support of home care visits and all that goes with them.
	Social services departments are having their budgets squeezed, however, so this problem does not arise through a lack of desire to make those houses disabled-friendly. Often, they are not getting the extra money for that from a Government who are forcing them to allow more people to stay at home, even if in some cases that might not be entirely appropriate for the person concerned.
	We need greater education and awareness among the public on disability issues and on getting rid of stigma for people with disabilities. That is certainly appropriate for local authorities when dealing with social housing, looking after people with learning disabilities and handling school allocations for people with disabilities. So the extra requirements in the Bill are welcome, but this is another example of placing extra requirements and resource implications on local authorities without necessarily providing the resources to make them possible and practical.
	I return to the point that several hon. Members have made about the apparent exclusion of all the duties on schools and echo the request from my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk that the Minister make this point crystal clear in her winding-up speech. Clearly, not only Members of the House, but many well informed bodies outside are confused about exactly what will be required of schools in respect of their disability obligations.
	For example, the Children's Society briefing says:
	We recognise that schools are subject to a range of existing legislation and guidance in respect of special educational needs. However this is no substitute for clear and unequivocal regulations and guidance setting out schools duties.
	Schools are at very different stages of meeting their current obligations and many disabled children. The recent Ofsted report Special educational needs and disability: towards inclusive schools published in October 2004 highlighted that over half the schools visited had no accessibility plans and that only a minority of mainstream schools meet special needs very well. More recent research involving interviews with LEA officers in 2004 shows that progress is slow and limited for disabled children in schools and that pupils with special educational needs are still losing out on admissions policies and practices.
	The Disabilities Charities Consortium, in responding on why it thinks specific duties on schools are needed in the Bill, says:
	Schools have a particularly important role in promoting disability equality because of their unique influencing role on future generations. They provide the bedrock for disabled individuals' opportunities in future life.
	We know that the schools system is currently not delivering equality of opportunity for disabled pupils. For example, 27 per cent. of disabled people aged 1624 have no qualifications whatsoever, compared to 12 per cent. of non-disabled people of the same age, disabled people aged 18 are only 40 per cent. as likely to go to university as their non-disabled peers.
	It continues:
	The Government's reluctance to impose the same specific duties on schools as on other public bodies means that unlike other public bodies, schools will not have to produce Disability Equality Schemes, involving disabled people in the process, nor will they have to monitor and report on their progress.

Maria Eagle: Many Members have mentioned this issue, and I keep saying that the specific duties will apply to schools, as the Secretary of State has made clear. It has only ever been proposed that the duties should be in regulations, as the hon. Gentleman will see from the Bill. They will therefore apply in the same way to schools through regulation as they will to any other public authority. I hope that that makes the position crystal clear to any Members who have been concerned about the issue.

Tim Loughton: Will the Minister therefore confirm my point that disability equality schemes, for example, will be required to be produced by all?

Maria Eagle: We have just completed a consultation on how the regulations should operate and what the regulations will say. When the regulations are published, the hon. Gentleman will see precisely how they will work. They will apply to schools as they will be applied to other public sector bodies.

Tim Loughton: I think that the Minister is now saying something different. She is talking about regulations that none of us have seen, and about a consultation exercise that does not form part of this legislation. That is why there is confusion. I have asked her a specific question as to how our fears can be allayed by the legislation, and that provision is not in place. It is only fair that such concerns should be aired. We will need clear guidance as to the form in which she suggests that the regulations will appear, when they will appear and how they will interact with this legislation. That is a fair point, and that is why Members have raised the concern time and again, much to her annoyance. Such concerns are legitimate, however.
	In relation to education, I welcome the clauses dealing with the general qualifications bodies. I have a particular concern, as an officer of the all-party deafness group and having visited a deaf school recently, about some of the changes that some examining bodies have made, which would disadvantage seriously those with deafness. Previously, such people have been accommodated much more generously when taking exams. Perhaps the Minister will tell me, when she winds up, whether such considerations will now be included in the part of the Bill on general qualifications bodies.
	Deafness is a disability that affects many of our constituents. I hosted recently a reception in the House by the deafness group, Sign, which does a lot of good work, particularly for deaf people with mental illness problems, too. It has produced some fantastic innovations and projects, including a software program that can be distributed to every GP in the country for the price of 10 per year, in which a signer in video form on a laptop screen goes through a list of symptoms and possible illnesses, pointing to parts of the body and so on. It is a simple and clever way of enabling a doctor who has no sign language to communicate with a deaf person. It also has applications for people who speak a different language, as a translatable version is possible.
	In relation to mental illness, uniquely, patients have had to prove that their illness is clinically well recognised to secure the protection of the DDA. I welcome the amendments tabled in the upper House to deal with that, as it affects an awful lot of people. One in four of the population will experience a mental illness problem at some time in their life. One in 10 children now suffers from mental illness, much of which is related to depression. It is still a very big stigma. More of a stigma is probably attached to mental illness than to any other disability or physical condition. On the day on which the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Billof which I was a memberhas produced its rather damning report, I must say that I fear the Government's proposals will do nothing to reduce that stigma. Indeed, in their present form they would do the opposite.
	There is a big shortage not just of acute beds but cognitive behavioural therapy and other alternatives to drug treatment, especially counselling. I hope that some measures in the Bill will make it easier for people with mental illness to gain access to such services. Mental health has been very poorly served by anti-discrimination legislation. The Disability Charities Consortium says:
	These provisions cause real problems for people with depression . . . depression is typically severe though relatively short-lived but discrimination against the person is commonplace . . . once there is a medical record of having had depression in the past, however distant or short-lived, discrimination is common.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) gave figures demonstrating how difficult it is for such people to find jobs. There are the revolving door patients who go into residential accommodation for treatment, then recover, leave the accommodation and may be able to secure straightforward jobs for a time, but then relapse and have to return. The DCC continues:
	However case law has shown that this provision is not effective in the case of depression. There are differences of view within the medical profession as to whether (and when) episodes of depression are manifestations of an underlying condition and when they are discrete episodes. As a result experts often disagree in court on the issues. Furthermore, doctors often, understandably, feel reluctant to testify that a person with a first episode is likely to have a recurrence.
	The risk of a recurrence of an episode of depression within a five-year period is as high as 70 per cent., which is a problem for people wanting to enter employment.
	In this more than any other context, we need a joined-up approach to, for example, helping people with mental illness back into housing when they have been inresidential accommodation. I am particularly concerned about what the Government are doing with the supported housing project. According to a parliamentary answer from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister today, some 12,000 individuals and households benefit from the supporting people programme, which is now to be cut. In Worthing, in my part of west Sussex, it will be cut by some 30 per cent. Many people with mental illness problems who have benefited greatly from that project will not be able to do so any more, and I think that that has severe implications. I urge the Government to think again about trying to reverse the amendments on depression that were made in another place.
	At the same time as introducing regulations, restrictions and duties on public bodies such as local authorities and schools, we should bear in mind the enormous amount of good practice that goes on. We should do all that we can to encourage such good practice. It need not be costly. One of the best examples is provided by the store BQ, which showed itself to be enlightened and progressive when it saw a niche market and became much more disabled-friendlyjust as, some time earlier, it had become more environmentally friendly.
	To a greater extent than many other large retailers, BQ has a policy of encouraging the employment ofpeople with disabilitiespeople with physical disabilities who may be in wheelchairs, and people with learning disabilities. Surprise, surprise, it has found that such people make rather more reliable and hard-working members of staff than some others. Surprise, surprise, it has found that it takes a larger share of the disabled customer base because people see that it is disability-friendlyand not only in terms of providing wheelchairs, situating signs at a lower level and providing large print signs, and not only because it employs people with disabilities. Disabled people like to shop there and BQ has made a commercial success out of being disability-friendly. If only many more retailers and businesses followed that example! We should not only be imposing more regulations: we should be pointing to the attractions and benefits for everybodyit is a win-win situationfrom encouraging good practice among businesses that become disability-friendly.
	There are more things in the Bill to be scrutinised and it would benefit from more time in Committee than I fear it will get if the general election is on 5 May. I do not take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South that a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee is in some way a substitute for this Chamber or the upper Chamber having a full opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. It is complementary to the process and helps to prepare the Bill before it comes to this place. However, it will deserve no less scrutiny because of that process when it goes through the upper House or this Chamber.
	The Government need to come out with further details, but I join all Members who have spoken in this excellent debate in welcoming the Bill and in hoping that it will get on to the statute book before the general election. I hope also that the benefits that it will bring can be enjoyed by our many of our constituents who have disabilities as soon as possible.

Paul Goodman: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate. The Under-Secretary has a lot of ground to cover, so I will not go into detail on the three comprehensive and knowledgeable speeches from Government Membersfrom the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt)or the three equally knowledgeable and sensitive speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and, not least, my relentlessly inclusive hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).
	I shall not repeat points made in the debate but shall raise one that arose during it. Much of the debate has focused on what will happen with any time that we have in Committee, which the Under-Secretary knows is likely to be limited. It would be helpful if she gave some idea of the priority that the Government will place on the Bill in Committee. It would be regrettable if that time were spent on rolling back the gain made on depression.
	This is a good and worthwhile Bill with all-party support and the Under-Secretary will now have a chance to respond to the debate.

Maria Eagle: I concur with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that we have had an excellent debate and on a number of other things that he said. It is a privilege for me to reply for the Government.
	I believe strongly that completing the implementation of full civil rights for disabled people is something of which the Labour Government can be proud. Having listened to the general support for the Bill from all parts of the House, I believe that the progress that it represents when it is enacted will be a change for good for disabled people in Britain. By good, I do not only mean a change for the better in the individual day-to-day lives of our disabled fellow citizens but also that it will achieve permanent change and improvements that will not be reversed in the future by any Government.
	For disabled people, this is a major advance, a milestone on their road to true equality and equal respect in our society. Our society is part of the way through a journey. We have left behind the place where disabled people were ignored, excluded and even hidden away, and sometimes feared, reviled, ridiculed and abused. But we need to get to a place where they have full opportunities and choices in lifewhere they are respected and included as equal members of our society and feel free, like the rest of us, to live their lives and to contribute their talents to our country and to our world. I doubt whether anybody in the House disagrees with that.
	This Government have listened to the just demand made by disabled people over the years for true equality and we are acting to speed progress ever faster toward the goals of inclusion, respect, equality and improved life chances. The Bill is a great step forward and I welcome the widespread recognition of that fact across the House. In particular, I welcome the support of the Conservatives, whose eagerness to be seen as the champions of disabled people's rights, as represented in   the speeches of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and his colleagues, is absolutely apparent.
	Such eagerness is very much to be welcomed, but some seasoned observers of this scene might be a tiny bit surprised by it. After all, it was the Conservatives who, for 16 of their last 18 years in office, did regrettably little when they had the power to change disabled people's lives. They repeatedly squandered the opportunity, provided by the work of my noble Friend Lord Morris in the 1970s, to enable Britain to lead the world on disability civil rights. We could have been much further ahead had they taken forward these issues at the beginning of their period in office, instead of at the very end. It is the Conservatives who, reluctantly, passed what proved to be flawed and inadequate anti-discrimination legislation, after using parliamentary tactics for many years to prevent disabled people from having rights. It is a truly astonishing conversion that we have witnessed today, but I stress that it is very welcome.
	Many Conservative Members stressed transport provision, but I find myself wondering why the party that originally refused to define transport as a service in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is now urging me to bring the proposed end date in respect of transport forward from 2020 to 2017. The Conservatives' legislation did not even include a power to set end dates, so this is something of a conundrum, but as I said, their conversion is very welcome. Indeed, I welcome support from all parts of the House.
	Numerous issues were raised during the debate and I will do my best to deal with as many as possible. The hon. Member for Wycombe raised five different issues, including one stressed by other Members: clause 18 and the depression amendment, if I might refer to it in that shorthand. Since its inception, a fundamental principle of the DDA has been that it protects people who are disabled. The general understanding of disability is that it is a condition with a long-term and substantial adverse effect, so there is a basic difficulty in that term's covering people who experience isolated, short spells of depression or any other short-term condition. The legislation has always excluded people with short-term conditions and it is equally important that, as we work to improve its coverage, we do not make it too complicated for those upon whom such obligations are to be placed. The House should remember that, in many cases, we are talking about small businesses and we must not make it too difficult for them to understand and appreciate who is covered by the legislation and who is not.
	We do not believe that the proposed amendment has been thought through properly. For example, if it were accepted, the DDA would provide lifetime coverage for someone who suffered a six-month period of post-natal depression, and who suffered another period of depression five years later that had a completely different cause, such as the loss of a parent or other relative. We would all have a great deal of sympathy for such a person, but most of us would not consider them disabled, and we have always tried to be careful not to include in the legislation people who are not seen as disabled. That is the fundamental difficulty that we have with the amendment, and I hope that Members in all parts of the House will recognise that fact. Conversely, the amendment would not cover someone whose circumstances were exactly the same, but who had had five rather than six months of post-natal depression. In other words, the implications are somewhat arbitrary, which cannot be justified. That is our basic difficulty with the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I regret the fact that the Minister was so churlish in her highly partisan comments earlier in her speech. Will she acknowledge that a person suffering post-natal depression for six months would, under her Government's draft Mental Health Bill, be much more likely to be subject to sectioning? Does she believe that such coercive legislation will help to counter the stigma that people suffering from mild mental illness often face? It will do nothing for the rights and entitlements of people with disabilities, yet the Government are seeking to introduce such a measure at the fag-end of their time in office.

Maria Eagle: I thought that my introductory remarks were relatively subdued and gentle. I am not going to be drawn into discussing the draft mental health legislation. I am trying to explain to the House, as I have been asked to do, why we are considering reversing the amendment on depression. Members can agree or disagree, but I am simply explaining it to the House.
	We do not believe that it is sensible to extend the law in respect of just one type of condition or to breach the principle of long-term conditions on which the legislation is based. Now is not the right time to do that. Conservative Members should realise that this is not the end of the road for disability rights. It is not as if there will be no further opportunities to tweak and improve legislation. I hope that I have dealt with the matter of depression.
	The hon. Member for Wycombe and others raised the issue of cancer and, in particular, whether the regulations should exclude certain types. I understand the concern of many people both in and outside the House, but I want to stress that we are carrying out the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force, on which we consulted. The results of that consultation showed that 87 per cent. of respondents approved of the policy. These concerns have been raised with us rather late in the day. That does not mean that they are unreasonableI fully understand them, as I saidbut in deciding whether to include those whom a reasonable person would not view as disabled, we have to achieve a balance. That is what we are trying to do.
	We are trying to move forward on this matter by undertaking to seek evidence about stigma relating to the conditions that we propose to exclude in the regulations. We shall also have detailed discussions with organisations outside the House, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), to establish any evidence of stigma. If any evidence is forthcoming, we are open to persuasion and we have said that the regulation-making power will not be used until we are absolutely clear about the issue of stigma. We have consulted on five different types of cancer.
	I believe that that provides a positive way forward and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House are reassured that this is not a matter that we have come up with at a late stage to cause confusion or a stir. The Disability Rights Task Force made the recommendation, we consulted on it and 87 per cent. of respondents agreed with it. We will, of course, take account of any further concerns and the Secretary of State made it clear in his opening remarks that we intend to be as positive as possible. There is no intention to cause unnecessary complexity or to leave out people who should be included just for the sake of it.

Paul Goodman: I asked one question on this point, which had to with the timetable for the Government's response to the consultation and review.

Maria Eagle: Which consultation is the hon. Gentleman referring to?

Paul Goodman: The consultation and review in respect of the cancers at present excluded from cover.

Maria Eagle: We want to give those organisations that have raised those concerns at quite a late stage in the process time to submit any evidence that they may have that stigma is attached to those conditions. We will not be rigid about the matter and we will give them the time that they need. There is no reason why regulations under this power should be made according to any speedy time scale. We need to make sure that we get this matter right, to everyone's satisfaction. I hope that that reassures those hon. Members who raised the issue.
	The hon. Member for Wycombe also asked when section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 would come into effect. My understanding is that he will not have to wait long, as it will come into effect on 4 April. I hope that he will be pleased with the speedy response that I have been able to give him on that question.
	Several hon. Members asked about end dates and the 2020 deadline. Bringing the end dates further forward than originally planned would impose extra costs on industry, but that has to be balanced against the speed with which we can make our transport system more easily accessed by disabled people. We always need to be pragmatic about such matters. The Bill is all about balancing the needs of disabled people against the costs incurred by certain stakeholders in society, such as businesses.
	We think that 2020 is the right date. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that does not for a moment imply that no transport vehicles will be ready before then. The accessibility regulations for rail and bus vehicles are already having a positive impact. For example, 3,800 fully accessible rail vehicles are already in service, with 700 more to follow in the next 12 months. The total fleet comprises some 16,500 vehicles, so a good quarter is already fully accessible, and that shows that we are making progress.
	Of the taxi fleet, 56 per cent. is already wheelchair accessible, although I admit that that figure mainly applies to black cabs, which are easier to render accessible than other vehicles. However, we expect steady progress towards improvement to be made between now and the end dates. We do not expect everything to remain as it is now until we reach the end dates, with a sudden improvement as those dates approach.
	The DRC accepted that 2020 is a reasonable deadline. I fully understand that disabled people wish that everything could be accessible now rather than at some time in the future, but the House must recognise that we have to overcome a legacy of inaccessibility. Transport was not included in the 1995 Act, and that has not helped over the past 10 years. Part 3 of the Bill deals with transport, and that will help deal with some of the other problems that hon. Members set out. We have all heard the stories about ramps that are not used, bus drivers who drive past and disabled people having to use slam-door rolling stock.
	By the way, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) might be interested to know that I have been told that the slam-door stock on the lines in his area ought to be replaced by the end of the year. I can say no more on that subject, but replacement will clearly be very welcome. I agree with him that it is outrageous that wheelchair users should be expected to travel in the guard's van. One of my constituents told me a similar story only a little while ago, so we know that such things still happen. Including transport fully and properly in this Bill is a good way to make sure that they will not continue.

Tom Levitt: I am a regular user of the Pendolino service on the west coast main line, where disabled wheelchair access is very good, but the same cannot be said for the trains on branch lines. I appreciate that, for the reasons that I gave in my speech, there has to be a relatively long lead-in time. Nevertheless, while the number of carriages that are accessible is less than 100 per cent., a disabled person will not know whether the branch service that they want to use is accessible. Will there be a way of encouraging train operators to ensure that at least one coach in every train is disabled accessible in the time leading up to when 100 per cent. can be achieved?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend raises the issue of better quality information for passengers. Many train operators are getting much better than they used to be, and they are beginning to realise that disabled people have a lot of money to spend, that they like to travel as much as anybody else and that excluding them from transport services excludes not only the disabled people but often their entire family from a journey. We are seeing an increasing realisation of that among businesses and that is something that we want to encourage.
	The other big issue raised during the debate concerned how the general and specific duties would apply to schools. I kept trying to be clear, although I appear to have failed to convince hon. Members about how clear I was. The general duties are in the Bill, and the specific duties will be in regulation-making powers. The Department consulted on how they will apply last year and draft regulations set out how the specific duties are intended to work. We have consulted on those regulations, which are in the Library, so there is some indication of what the duties will consist of. They will cover matters such as a disability equality scheme, demonstrating that disabled people have been involved in producing the scheme and action plan, setting out a plan of action to make improvements, and other such arrangements.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his introduction to the debate that the specific duties will apply to schools, and the Bill has never been about trying to place onerous burdens on anybody, whether schools or any other public sector body. It is not about trying to ensure that public sector bodies are engaged in bureaucratic form-filling and box-ticking but ensuring that we design out institutional discrimination from the way in which our public sector works. Such discrimination is often one of the biggest obstacles to disabled people in their attempt to live ordinary lives: to access services and goods, to go to work and to do all the things that the rest of us take for granted.

David Taylor: No doubt the regulations to which my hon. Friend is referring arise partly out of discussions with the Department for Education and Skills. What further discussions are planned as the regulations emerge so that the DFES and schools are clear about their role in promoting the Government's policy for disabled children and their families?

Maria Eagle: Discussions take place between Departments all the timethat is about all that I can say. Of course we will discuss with colleagues across Government how such measures work and how they are implemented.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made an excellent contribution, based as ever on her personal experience. She is much respected in this House as someone who has more right than most to speak on the issue. She welcomed the legislation and gave some examples from her constituency of some other difficult issues that the Bill tries to tackle, such as housing. I acknowledge that the Bill does not deal fully with housing for disabled people. It was never intended to, and civil rights legislation is not the only way in which the issue can be tackled. However, I hope that, as others have done, she will welcome our move to try to make some progress in dealing with the issue of common parts in housing. Housing for disabled people is one of the most difficult issues that remains to be dealt with. The Disability Rights Task Force did not deal with common parts in its recommendations and we will have to return to the matter, whether in civil rights legislation or elsewhere. We must get better at ensuring that disabled people can access housing. As society ages, as more of us become disabled and as young disabled people live longer, the matter cannot be left. It remains unfinished business.
	The Bill makes progress because, for the first time, the concept of civil rights applies to the landlord and tenant relationship, although it does not cover common parts. The working group that my Department established to look at progress on common parts could be a positive way of looking at next steps. We hope that it will return to Ministers by the end of the year with recommendations on how to go forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (TomLevitt), who has a distinguished record of speaking on these issues in the House and served on the Joint Committeeas did my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Southmade his usual robust contribution, which made my gentle musings about the Opposition's record seem mild. I enjoyed his speech and, as ever, he emphasised issues of concern to deaf people on which he has an excellent record in the House.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) generally welcomed the Bill and I was pleased to hear that. He made it clear that some organisations representing local government also welcomed it and I am also pleased about that, because the public sector duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people applies not only to central Government, but to local government. I was heartened that local government organisations, as well as Whitehall Departments, recognise that we need to do better. The public sector duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people could make a real difference to their lives during the next few years, so I was pleased to hear that his party supports the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the lack of an equalities Act and I heard what he said. He knows that a review is considering some of the issues and I would not want to pre-empt any recommendations that it might make. After some of the extensive revisions to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the article 13 regulations, the legislation is ripe for consolidation because it will be virtually unreadable for lawyers, never mind lay people, by the time the Bill is enacted. We will have to return to that.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) came to the issue through the experience of a member of his staff, which is a typical way in which hon. Members come to believe that the issue is important. He stressed the general and specific duties and whether they apply to schools. I hope that I have been able to answer his questions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) also came to the issue through personal experience, but in his case it was family experience. He emphasised a point that no other hon. Member had raised, but with which we all agreethat carers are important to disabled people. We all know and accept that from our constituency experience. He gave credit to many local organisations for disabled people in his constituency, which is an experience that many of us in the House can relate to. We all know organisations for disabled people in our constituencies that do invaluable work daily to support disabled people and to ensure that their voices are heard, although disabled people are increasingly doing that themselves.
	My hon. Friend praised a local journalist, as opposed to what might be described as the less than praise for a national journalist that we heard from the hon. Member for Chesterfield in relation to an article in The Times today. I read the article by Alice Miles and what struck me most was the lack of any kind of analysis of the point that discrimination might be occurring. That is the problem I had with the article, but it is clear that not all journalists are as unenlightened. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South was able to illustrate that with reports of a local journalist who does sterling work in his constituency.
	Other hon. Members referred with approbation to the extension of the legislation to private clubs. Of course that includes political parties, and the Bill will challenge and test all of us to ensure that we put our money where our mouths are and change the way in which we relate to our own membersbecause we are member organisationsso that we do not exclude disabled people. It is daunting in many ways, because the Bill will place far more obligations on all of us as members of private clubs, which we all are as members of political parties. We are taking on some difficult issues and we have to ensure that we get them right.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made his usual thoughtful speech, although I cannot agree with him that the Bill has been delayed. I understand why Opposition Members have claimed that, but the Bill has been improved by the extensive consultation. We need to get it right, because such legislation will be successful only if it gains general support within society. There is no point having theoretical rights on the statute book that do not have the approbation of those upon whom they place obligations. The Bill is now balanced from that point of view. It has been widely consulted on and will be much more widely accepted as a result.
	The Bill plugs gaps that need dealing with, such as the transport exemption from part 3, the non-application of the law to councillors and private clubs, which includes political parties, and the functions of public authorities not already covered by the service and employment provisions. It also strengthens and improves the effectiveness of our anti-discrimination laws.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who is in his place and who was involved in the issue from the start. He established the Disability Rights Task Force and, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he was assiduous in ensuring that the legislation made progress.

Andrew Smith: I apologise for not having been here for the earlier speeches. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her kind and generous remarks. She is evidently drawing her remarks to a close, but we should not fail to mention that her energy and dedication to the cause and the evident command of her brief that she has shown today and on other occasions are largely responsible for the fact that the legislation is now receiving its Second Reading. In particular, my hon. Friend, her officials and her ministerial team have worked with disabled people and that is the key to getting the Bill right and to implementation, so that we can translate the rights on paper into rights in reality. That will be a huge step forward for disabled people in this country and this Government can be truly proud of that.

Maria Eagle: My right hon. Friend is very generous.
	The Bill places the public sector unequivocally in the lead as exemplars, requiring of us all a systematic effort to remove institutional discriminationthe often unthought-of barriers that provide the biggest obstacles to disabled people's equality. It is that provision that has the potential to enable us to end discrimination for good by designing it out of how we do things. I believe that that is an exciting prospect.
	Once the Bill is enacted, we can move on to focus our efforts on making the rights we have placed on the statute book a reality in the day-to-day lives of our disabled fellow citizens, instead of being theories in a law book. The Government already have a blueprint for doing just that in the Prime Minister's strategy unit report Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People. Our next great challenge is to implement that and to make a reality of independent living and employment opportunities for all. That is our manifesto for disabled people and, as a cross-Government paper, it already has the merit of being accepted Government policy.
	Today, however, we should not allow the remaining challenges of the future to obscure the sense of celebration that we should all feel as we send the Bill on its way through the House. The Disability Rights Commission says that the Bill
	represents a major advance for disabled people.
	It further states:
	It is now imperative that the Bill reaches the statute book in advance of a general election.
	I think that we all concur. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 38A (6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords]
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th April 2005.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on any message from the Lords) may be programmed.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise
	(a) the charging of fees in connection with rail vehicle accessibility compliance certificates, and
	(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	  
	Rail Services (South-East London)

Nigel Beard: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Bexleyheath, Crayford and surrounding areas of south-east London.
	The Strategic Rail Authority has put out to tender the integrated Kent franchise rail network. Consultation took place in January 2004, after which the SRA proposed a balance of services to London Victoria, London Bridge and Cannon Street from Bexleyheath. However, a year later, the specification issued to companies that wish to run the services has cut all peak and off-peak services to Victoria station. Such a departure from the original proposals devalues the consultation process. Many people from my constituency use the Victoria service regularly to get to work or to the west end for leisure. That change in service will cause substantial inconvenience to those commuting to Victoria and stations in between, such as Denmark Hill, which serves King's College hospital.
	I am today submitting 618 handwritten signatures. A further 1,176 signatures appear on Bexley council's website, making a total of roughly 1,800 signatures, which suggests the strength of dismay about the sudden change to transport provision for south-east London. Bexley council also objects to the removal of the Bexleyheath to Victoria service.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to press for the Strategic Rail Authority to reinstate services between Bexleyheath and Victoria Station, along with other passenger rail services to Charing Cross and Cannon Street (as derived from consultation), in the specification of services that companies tendering for the Integrated Kent Franchise will be expected to provide.
	To lie upon the Table.

Heavy lorries (Woolavington)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Woolavington village in the county of Somerset. The petition is signed by 315 of the village's residents, who declare that
	heavy lorries passing through the village of Woolavington are causing noise and inconvenience to residents
	and a danger to villagers, especially children who have to cross the busy road, because of the speed at which the lorries go through the village. To use the modern term, it is a rat-run between the motorway and the main road.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to impose a weight restriction on vehicles passing through small villages.
	To lie upon the Table.

CHILDREN'S HOSPICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Gillian Merron.]

Jeff Ennis: I am conscious of the fact that the Adjournment debate is starting early, so I will be happy to take any interventions from hon. Members.
	I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important matter of national health service support for children's hospices. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), will know that I have campaigned long and hard on the matter for a considerable time.
	Much of my campaigning zeal has been stimulated by one of my constituents, Mr. Peter Finnegan, from Bolton upon Dearne. He is a redoubtable campaigner and local fundraiser for many good causes. Three such good causes for which Peter has campaigned in the past couple of years readily spring to mind, the first of which is the Robert Ogden school for autistic children, which is run by the National Autistic Society and is the biggest specialist autistic school in the whole of western Europe. Peter has also raised a lot of money for the South Yorkshire air ambulance andlast but not leastthe Bluebell Wood children's hospice appeal, about which I shall say a little more later.
	Peter is of course famous for spending 90 days locked up in a portaloo at the bottom of his garden between 1 January and the end of March last year, to protest at what he perceived to be the lack of Government support for children's hospices. Peter, who is probably in his mid-60s, does not enjoy the best of health, but he showed magnificent fortitude in staying the full distance. He left the portaloo for only roughly four or five hours during the night, for obvious reasons. I know from personal experience that it was very cold sitting on that portaloo at the bottom of his garden in south Yorkshire between January and March. It was the first time I had ever done any campaigning while sitting on a toilet.
	While Peter was doing his bit on the toilet, I was obviously doing my bit in Parliament. I asked the Prime Minister a question on the matter last February, and presented a petition organised by Peter Finnegan and signed by more than 5,000 south Yorkshire people on 19 May 2004. I had a meeting with the Minister in his hallowed office on 21 July 2004, about which I shall say more shortly.
	I have submitted the following early-day motion on the matter in the past two parliamentary Sessions. Early-day motion 226, as it is in this Session, is titled Review of NHS Funding for Children's Hospices. I tabled it on 30 November 2004 and it states:
	That this House asks the Secretary of State for Health to undertake an urgent review of NHS funding for children's hospices with a view to reducing the gap which currently exists between NHS funding for children's hospices and adult hospices.
	I urge all hon. Members who have not done so to sign the early-day motion, about which I feel strongly.
	I applied for the debate because children's hospices currently receive less than 5 per cent. of their funding from the national health service, whereas adult hospices receive well over a third of their funding from the NHS. That differential is too great, so we need to examine closely the reasons behind it and find ways and means of closing it.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend refer to the Rainbows hospice in Loughboroughit is just outside my constituencywhich serves not only Leicestershire and the east midlands, but areas as far away as south Yorkshire? A low proportion of its funding is met by the central taxpayer. Does he hope that the Minister will carefully examine its work and that of similar hospices? Adult hospices get 30 per cent. of their funding in such a way, which is fine, and successive Administrations have said that they will eventually match-fund the adult hospice movement. Does my hon. Friend join me in hoping that the Government will do something similar for children's hospices?

Jeff Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to a hospice that adequately serves south Yorkshire at present. I shall talk about that specific situation later in my speech, if he will be patient.
	As the Minister will recall from our meeting in his office on 21 July last year, this was the main subject of our discussion. He rightly pointed out the many reasons why national health service funding of adult and children's hospices varies so greatly. One of the main differences that he pointed out was the fact that children's hospices receive a greater proportion of their funding from social services departments to cover aspects such as respite care packages for parents. Unfortunately, no national statistics are currently available to identify accurately the amount of that additional funding that is going to children's hospices.
	In the light of that situation and because I could not find information on the national position, I decided to try to identify the additional amount from a south Yorkshire perspective. I contacted the four directors of social services in south Yorkshire, and their responses were illuminating. I shall begin with my two home authorities. First, the chief executive of Barnsley said:
	Further to discussions at the recent meeting of MPs and the Leader of the Council I can confirm that the Council receives no specific funding for Children's Hospice care.
	Families normally access this care via their General Practitioner and there would only be consideration of any funding from the Council if it was part of a multi-agency package through the complex cases process, which would be on a case-by-case basis.

Dave Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main concerns that many of us have about the dependence on social services is that they are probably one of the most underfunded services that local authorities provide? We all know that they are under tremendous pressure. If we are dependent on social services, does it not mean that shortfalls in such provision will be likely?

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes a very telling point. It is taken as read that social services departments have been underfunded over the years. I am glad that the current Government have addressed that situation and that it is continually being addressed, but the issue is still very sensitive.

Stephen Ladyman: It is not usual for the Minister to intervene at this stage in an Adjournment debate, but as we have time and there are suggestions that people want us to use it, I point out to my hon. Friend that social services departments have received a real-terms increase of almost 30 per cent. since 1997.

Jeff Ennis: I am glad that the Minister makes the point for me.
	Let me finish quoting the letter of the chief executive at Barnsley:
	Officers from Social Services have trawled their records. We have only one instance where a young boy receives regular Hospice respite care. This is funded by the Health Service, although Social Services do provide funding for many of his other complex needs.
	The director of social services at my other home authority, Doncaster, said:
	I can confirm that no money has been allocated or spent on Children's Hospices within Doncaster Social Services.
	We have our own in-house specialist Child Care Unit for children with profound disabilities, some of whom have shortened life expectancy. These children can receive flexible packages of respite.
	At Rotherham, the director of social services wrote:
	In relation to funding I can advise you that the Local Authority Social Services Programme Area here in Rotherham has no direct budgetary provision for funding children's hospices. I know from your correspondence to Mike Farrar
	chief executive of the South Yorkshire strategic health authority
	that Dr. Ladyman has indicated that the disparity between children's and adult hospices is masked by the fact that Social Services money is going to children's hospices. This is certainly not the case here in Rotherham where the Local Authority is not directly involved in funding either adult hospice provision or children's hospice provision.
	My Children's Disability staff do however work closely with a number of families with children with long term illnesses and disabilities, and we provide a range of respite care breaks within our own two respite care units. In relation to the specialised palliative care provided in children's hospices, we liaise closely with sub-regional hospices and families, but do not make direct financial contribution to these.

Dave Watts: I think that my hon. Friend would agree that his constituency bears many similarities to mine. We have a very high proportion of people with all sorts of illnesses caused by the area's industrial past of coal, chemicals and so on. Does not that place on those social services departments a much higher burden than many others have to bear, which means that there are fewer resources for these facilities?

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he makes a valuable point. Indeed, my constituency has the highest level of disability of any constituency in the UK, including Northern Irelandthere is at least one disabled person in every three households. That is a legacy of the former mining industry.

Alan Meale: I congratulate my hon. Friend on choosing such a fine subject. There used to be the same approach to mental health when hospitals were closed down and people were dispatched back to communities. Neither the health service, nor social services, nor even local authority housing departments would pick up the costs. People give their voluntary support to try to keep hospices going, but they are slipping through the funding net. We must get our funding criteria right to ensure that these fine organisations and institutions are properly funded for the future.

Jeff Ennis: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend. I will deal with possible solutions to the problem when I conclude my remarks.

David Taylor: Like my hon. Friend, I have raised the financial plight of hospices from time to time during this Parliament. Does he agree that one of the reasons why successive Governments, and our own, have been generous to social services in local government and elsewhere, but have not responded to the plight of children's hospices, is that hospices are able to tap the goodwill and generosity of the British people because of the quality of their cause? In the third millennium, we should not be looking to cake stalls, charity shops and raffles to fund something that is as central to the needs of thousands of children.

Jeff Ennis: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Again, I shall say more about that later.
	The final letter from South Yorkshire authorities is from Sheffield's director of services. It reads:
	Sheffield Social Services Department do not currently make any financial contribution to Children's Hospices. We do however part fund a Macmillan Social Worker and Manager.
	We can see from the four responses that I have received from my local authorities that the picture is somewhat different from the national picture that the Minister portrayed to me.

Stephen Ladyman: Let me take the opportunity to put the record straight. I imagine that what I was trying to explain to my hon. Friend was that social services make a bigger contribution to the palliative care of children than to that of adults. However, as I will point out in my speech, most of the palliative care of children takes place not in hospices, but at home. If he went back to those directors of social services and asked them how much money they are spending on families caring for children at home, I suspect that he would find that it is a substantial amount.

Jeff Ennis: I fully accept the Minister's point. I believe that wherever possible the care and treatment of terminally ill children should be in their home, but that is not always possible because of some children's health needs and requirements, and that is when the hospice has to come into play.
	I accept that South Yorkshire is probably not a particularly good example for me to use, because we do not currently have a children's hospice. The nearest hospices serving south Yorkshire are the Martin House hospice for children in Boston Spa, west Yorkshire, and the Rainbows children's hospice in Loughborough, Leicestershire, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) referred earlier. In the near future, however, all that will change, with the long overdue opening of the Bluebell Wood children's hospice in Dinnington, Rotherham.
	When that hospice opens it will serve a population of 1.2 million in the south Yorkshire and north midlands regions. Research carried out by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health estimates that there are 10.6 million children in England aged under 17, about 1,060 of whom are so ill that they are likely to die within a year; 10,600 of them suffer from a life-limiting condition. Half will need active palliative care at any one time, which is the point the Minister made earlier. In south Yorkshire, there are about 300 such children and their families.
	Bluebell Wood hospice estimates that it will receive about 4.17 per cent. of its revenue costs from the NHS. Those costs are currently estimated at 1.8 million a year for eight beds. That compares with the 5.9 per cent. received by the Rainbows hospice of its 1.6 million revenue costs for eight beds, and the 7 per cent. received by Martin House of its 2.6 million revenue costs for 15 beds.
	The Minister will be aware that the Bluebell Wood project has taken some years to come to fruition and, unfortunately, it will be a few more years before it is complete. However, some milestones have been reached recently. In August 2004, planning permission was granted for the Dinnington site, and I am pleased to say that BBC Radio Sheffield met its target to raise 400,000 for the hospice. I pass on my praise and thanks to the listeners for raising that amount. In December 2004, after four years of committed fund-raising throughout the region and extremely generous giving from all the communities of south Yorkshire, the Bluebell Wood hospice reached its 3 million funding target.
	Quantity surveyors and structural engineers were appointed this month and work will soon begin on the site. A head of care will take up her duties in June. Part of her role will be to forge links with local primary care trusts in relation to funding. There is a caveat, however. Bluebell Wood has been informed by several PCTs in the area that they will have no funding available for the hospice.
	That is the local position. I turn to the national picture. Children's hospices in England receive an average of just over 5 per cent. of their funding from statutory sources, mainly in one-off grants. Funding for children's hospices is inequitable and varies greatly from one area to another. There is no central guidance on the amount of primary care trust or local authority contributions. In the absence of any central guidance, co-ordination or direction, children's hospices constantly chase after much needed local authority funding with no guarantee of success, because no children's hospice service liaises with just one PCT. All those services have to deal with several PCTs, whereas the adult hospice in Barnsley, which receives a generous allowance from the NHS, deals with only one PCT. In Doncaster, the adult hospicewhich also gets a very generous allocationhas to deal with three primary care trusts. Because children's hospices operate on a sub-regional basis, they have to negotiate with up to 27 PCTs.

David Drew: I am sorry that I missed the early part of my hon. Friend's speech, but I completely concur with what he is saying. Would he accept that the problems are added to by the fact that the hospice movement, by its very nature, tends to draw most of its funds from local sources? Children's hospices have to draw their funds from a much larger area, and turf wars can develop out there. This means that they can lose out quite badly if they are perceived to be encroaching on local adult hospices' areas. That leads to quite an unpleasant situation, and can add to the problems related to funding from PCTs.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes a very telling point. As a former trustee of the Barnsley St. Peter's hospice, I know how much hard work is done by volunteers and in the local charity shops to raise funds. Because the children's hospices do not draw on such confined areas for funds, however, the tensions that my hon. Friend mentions can arise, as I am sure the Minister will recognise.
	The fact that children's hospices sometimes have to deal with up to 27 PCTs means that some of them will have to make up to 27 rounds of introductions and engage in up to 27 sets of negotiations, which could result in 27 quite different outcomes. These activities consume valuable resources, as they often have to be led by the most senior members of staff in the hospice. There is no framework to the funding maze, and no guidelines for PCTs and local authorities in regard to the allocation of resources.

David Taylor: That is a most important point in regard to simplifying the funding arrangements. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are at least two options available? One would involve strategic health authorities, which are responsible for larger populations. Alternatively, when a specialist service is involved, many groups of PCTs nominate a lead PCT within the area to conduct negotiations on service planning and finance. Would it not be possible to choose one of those options?

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I have had discussions with Mike Farrar, the chief executive of the South Yorkshire strategic health authority about this, and unfortunately the funding of hospices is clearly in the hands of local PCTs. It has absolutely nothing to do with the strategic health authorities. My hon. Friend also mentioned the setting up of a lead PCT, and we should explore that issue further.

Alan Meale: Perhaps there is a third alternative. My hon. Friend knows that, in the midlands and part of the north, a new type of authority has been created. It is a model authority that deals with mental health, and it stretches right through Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and parts of Lincolnshire; its boundary ends at Wath upon Dearne in Yorkshire. Perhaps this problem could be solved by the introduction of a brand new modela pilot model, perhapswhich could encompass such an area and get proper funding, as the new mental health authority is doing now.

Jeff Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent suggestion, which we could possibly explore further at the conclusion of today's debate.
	In regard to other funding sources for children's hospices, many such hospices have received grants through the New Opportunities Fund, which is now known as the Big Lottery Fund. That money is time limited, and runs out in March 2006. Lottery funding has become an important mainstay in meeting the annual running costs of children's hospices. It has provided a measure of security and helped to reduce the demanding pressure on fundraising. There is a concern, however, that that security will disappear when the funding comes to an end and is replaced by a more fragile funding mechanism. Children's hospice services recognise the need for some independence from the Government in order to be flexible enough to satisfy the needs of their users, but they also require a sustainable level of core income so that they can continue to provide the highest levels of care and support.
	The Government's response to the Health Committee inquiry on palliative care says that they are on course to implement a payment-by-results national tariff with respect to palliative care in both the NHS and the voluntary sector in England by 200809, and a national partnership group has been set up to address the development of health resource groups in the palliative care sector. The Association of Children's Hospices is concerned that a payment-by-results model will unbalance the essential mix of care and support that children's hospices provide to children and families.
	Children's hospices offer a diverse range of essential services involving long-term provision in addition to professional day and night care. Support in the children's homes, access to education, 24-hour support lines, bereavement counselling and social activities are just some of a range of core services that they provide, and not just to the child.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend is most generous in giving way yet again. Having had direct contact on a number of occasions with Rainbows hospice, I know that one of the most valued services of all is bereavement counselling after the loss of a child, in addition to day care, respite care and terminal care. Does he agree that, in addition to further Government funding for children's hospices, there ought to be more attempts made to fund the wish, which often exists among families, for children, and indeed adults in another context, to die at home? Those periods are emotionally and financially stressful.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes another excellent point, which I concur with. It is one of the main concerns of the Association of Children's Hospices that payment by results will adversely affect the flexibility and diversity of the service that they provide to communitiesnot just to the children, but to parents.
	I do not know whether the Minister was fortunate enough last December to see a brilliant BBC documentary on the Francis House children's hospice in Didsbury, Manchester, and its chief fund raiser, a young lady by the name of Kirsty Howard, and her family, who have succeeded in raising the magnificent sum of over 5 million for that hospice. I am pleased to say that Bluebell Wood has its own talisman in the form of five-year-old Jack Waller from Wombwell in my constituency. Jack, who suffers from primary pulmonary hypertension, has become the voice and face of Bluebell Wood, just as Kirsty Howard has become the voice and face of Francis House.
	Characters such as Jack and Kirsty require more direct Government support. I would like the Minister to say in his winding-up speech whether he agrees with me that the funding differential between children's hospices and adult hospices is too great and needs to be closed. I am not saying we should bring children's hospice funding up to the 30 per cent. level, but we should certainly go some way to try to fund children's hospices better.
	The Association of Children's Hospices wants me to make the following points. It would like there to be a full cost recovery model for agreed services that acknowledges the true level of community support that children's hospices provide. It would also like children's hospice organisations to be involved in the development of the payment-by-results framework via input to groups such as the health reference groups to ensure that that happens. It also believes that PCTs and local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that statutory funding sources are more obtainable for children's hospices.
	The association also wants the funding process to be simplified and streamlined to make it easier for children's hospices to apply for statutory grants. There needs to be central guidance from the Government to PCTs and local authorities. Combined funding pots might be a solution to make the funding process simpler and fairer. Children's hospices offer a diverse service, and offering to communities the type of statutory funding sources available is also diverse, as they cover not just health but social grants.
	In my opinion, all hospices should receive set statutory funding. It is probably too prescriptive, but why cannot children's hospices all have ring-fenced statutory funding at a set percentage, or at a set cost per bed provided? Surely there must be better methods of drawing down NHS funds than children's hospices having to negotiate with each and every primary care trust in their region: up to 27 different sets of negotiations with all the players in the sub-regions.
	I hope that the Minister will not go away from tonight's debate believing that I am just whingeing about the Government's initiatives or inaction. That is certainly not the case. I value the many great strides that the Government have made in supporting all hospices since coming to power. I know that the Minister values, as I do, all the outstanding work currently taking place in hospices up and down the country, and I hope that he will take on board many of my points in the spirit in which they have been made.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) for instigating today's debate, and I congratulate him on his persistence and tireless efforts on behalf of children's hospices. I was not aware that he had such a redoubtable constituent as Mr. Finnegan, who is prepared to sit on a cold toilet for 90 days in support of his campaign. I hope that he will send my best wishes to Mr. Finnegan and that we can reassure him in someway about the issue on which he is campaigning. Having discussed the matter with my hon. Friend on several occasions, however, I feel that I shall be disappointed if I am too hopeful about convincing him today.
	My hon. Friend and I agree that the children's hospice movement does vital and excellent work and that children with long-term or life-limiting conditions deserve the best care that we can offer. We differ, however, on how best to commission and support the children's hospice movement. Since we have debated and discussed this issue previously, as I said, I have little confidence that I will convince him, but I shall do my best.
	My hon. Friend would wish me to put in place the same levels of support and the same commissioning mechanisms for children's hospices as for adult hospices. But children's palliative care is different from that of adults. Children's palliative care involves much longer term provision and is structured around the management of serious chronic conditions, often with unpredictable disease pathways resulting in complex care needs, at home, with a hospice being one possible part of a child's package of care. Children's palliative care takes place in hospitals, in children's wards, mostly in the home, and occasionally in a hospice. That is a very different mix from that in relation to adults. That is one reason why we should not have the same commissioning mechanism for children's hospices as for adult hospices.
	Essentially, we aim to promote the quality of life associated with home life, social interaction and growth, increasing independence and the customary pursuits and developmental achievements of childhood. Support measures in the child's home, access to education and social activity are all key to that achievement. The commissioning strategy for children's palliative care must recognise that, and must not create a position in which such investment has been made in hospice provision that children are encouraged or pressed to occupy that provision to justify its cost and existence. Children should only go into a hospice when it is in their interest and not for any external reasons.
	Let us consider how commissioning will work for a typical constituency and what implications we would expect that to have for the development of a local hospice service for children. I have chosen that strategy to try to convince my hon. Friend, as I have never convinced him by using a conventional approach.
	The commissioning process should start with the statutory and voluntary sectors: the local primary care trust and the local hospice movement, working in partnership to design a service that they think meets the needs of local children. I would expect the primary care trusts to take the lead, and to build on the design by using the guidance provided for them. For example, the National Council for Hospices has produced guidance on how to assess palliative care needs and provision in a local area. I would also expect them to read the section on palliative care in the national service framework for childrenabout which I shall say more laterthe guidance from the Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and their Families, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health's Guide to the Development of Children's Palliative Care Services.
	More detail on specific requirements for palliative care is provided in the Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and their Families' guidance entitled Integrated Multi-agency Care Pathways for Children with Life-threatening and Life-limiting Conditions, published in December. I am afraid they do not go in for snappy titles in the children's palliative care movement! The document was funded by the Department of Health, and subsequently endorsed by the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. It presents a pathway to engagement with the child's needs and family needs, which can then be used to ensure that all the pieces of the jigsaw are in place so that families have access to the appropriate support at the appropriate time. The guidance is there to readily identify needs and gaps in service provision, and to stimulate the development of a local strategy that will meet the needs of the local population. We are providing all that evidence and guidance to allow PCTs to work out what provision they need to make in their areas.

Alan Meale: I must say that I am a bit confused. My area is being capped. At present Boston has 15 places, and Leicester has 50 or 60. We are talking about an area containing more than 4 million people, and the thousands of children to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) referred. The Bluebell project will provide a couple of score more places, but there is still a gap. I am not criticising the NHS or the Department's work. Because of the work done by the Minister and some of his colleagues, children in my constituency who need care are going to Great Ormond Street hospital, Birmingham children's hospitalthe whole works. But fewer than 100 places means that there is a gapa gap that we must fill.

Stephen Ladyman: That is exactly why we drew up the national service framework, which is mandatory for the NHS. In it we describe what a palliative care service should be like. It is the responsibility of every PCT to implement the national service framework. There are no targets apart from that: it is mandatory. If that gap exists, it is the responsibility of my hon. Friend's PCT to start the processwhich I am about to describeof filling it.

Alan Meale: I understand the Minister's dilemma, but the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough show that we have a problem. Without the Bluebell project, we have 60, 65 or 70 places to serve a region containing millions of people. The services that are being provided are fine, but a particular service is needed. I accept that responsibility lies with the PCTs, but they could be given some encouragement from the centre.

Stephen Ladyman: They are being given such encouragement. They have a responsibilitya dutyto fill that gap. One reason why I do not think it right to impose an arbitrary target on its funding for hospices is that if the gap is serious enough in a particular area, it is in the gift of the PCT to fund the hospice in its area 100 per cent., or to work with other PCTs in the area to do so. PCTs are not limited to 43 per cent., 40 per cent., 60 per cent. or 5 per cent. If, to fill the gap in my hon. Friend's constituency, they need to provide all the funds for a hospice, they can do it under our arrangementsand they will have to do it, if that is the only way in which they can fill the gap.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield talked about children being placed in hospital a long way awaysuch as in Great Ormond Street for examplebut he should not confuse the palliative care that a child may have to go into hospital to receive with the palliative care that the child will receive in a hospice.

Alan Meale: I accept that, but I want to pay tribute to his Department and to the Under-Secretary. The care given to young people by our health service now is far superior to what it was and I am grateful to the NHS, and to my PCT, which, if a child needs to go to Birmingham or Great Ormond Street, puts up the money. It is not all bad news.

Stephen Ladyman: It is not, and the national service framework will take the work even further. It has been identified by experts as the world's leading description of a health service for children, and the health services of the world are now coming to us to learn how we went about writing it. They will use it as a model to try to move their health services forward. My hon. Friends and I can be proud of what the Government have done on children's health services.

David Drew: This week my hon. Friend has been talking about direct payments. In this field, is it possible for the parents of a child with a need for palliative care to draw down those payments, which they may choose to spend on a hospice, to support themselves at home or on some other form of service? Is that what my hon. Friend has in mind?

Stephen Ladyman: That is exactly the situation. Where people are receiving any funding from social services departments, it can be made as a direct payment. Whether that is in respect of the provision for the person being cared for or whether it is in respect of meeting the assessed needs of the carer themselves, there is a duty on the council to make that payment as a direct payment if requested to do so. People can then make their own decisions as to how best they spend that money. It is not legalat least not at presentfor the NHS to make direct payments to people but, in cases where services are being jointly funded by the NHS and social services, people work in partnership and come up with innovative solutions to ensure that those who need them can access direct payments for their care. My hon. Friend is right and people may want to take that into consideration; if they feel they need some respite care by making use of a hospice, they are entitled to do so through a direct payment.
	The guidance is there and primary care trusts must use it to identify their needs and the gaps in their service. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough mentioned a number of PCTs that told a hospice that they would not be providing any funding. The question I would suggest that hospice and my hon. Friend need to ask the PCTs is whether they have provision in place to guarantee that no child in their area will need a hospice place. If they have come up with such comprehensive strategies for palliative care for children that they are absolutely confident that they do not need to help fund a hospice, it is perfectly reasonable for them not to offer any funding. But they should not then change their mind at a later date when they discover that they have children who need hospice support, because then they will have to pay for it.
	In addition to the guidance, the PCTs will soon be able to use information from the national child health mapping project, which will include palliative care. It will give PCTs valuable information to help with the commissioning of local services and will be available to them next year. Using all these documents and guidance, I would expect PCTs to come up with a strategy for how they will meet the needs of their local populations, providing the full range of palliative care, including care at home or respite care and hospice care. PCTs will then look at where that hospice care might come from, who they will commission it from and how close the local hospices are, bearing in mind thatas my hon. Friends have saidchildren's hospices cover wide catchment areas.
	If needs can be met by using existing resources and existing hospices, then there clearly is no problem. PCTs will commission places for children as and when needed from that provision, and pay a fee that they have negotiated for those services. On the other hand, they might identify a gap in local provision, in which case, they will have to start asking themselves questions such as, How do we commission that type of care pathway for children who need that sort of care? They will then ask, Which partners will join in, how will they fund the development of that service, and whom will they commission it from? They will look at the voluntary sector and the state sector, and work out a strategy for making sure that all the pieces of the jigsaw are in place.
	The hospice will need to ask the PCT what the gaps are in service provision and to consider what it might offer to meet those needs. They could be met not only by providing respite care within a hospice building, as my hon. Friend pointed out; they could also be met by focusing on outreach support services for the child's family in the home, or by sharing the hospice's expertise in palliative care by focusing on training for local NHS staff and local authority staff. In other words, the hospice movement has a lot more to offer than just places in a hospice.
	The PCT will then need to plot a way forward. That could involve encouraging the hospice movement to develop a new service, which, in turn, might involve its guaranteeing a certain level of support or investment. On the other hand, that might involve its guaranteeing to take a certain number of days of care, or simply giving the hospice movement sight of its plans, so that the hospice can work out for itself what part of its capacity might be taken up. But in any event, different local areas will need different local decisions and, therefore, different levels of funding for hospice care.
	Of course, to meet the demand for palliative care the NHS must be properly resourced, which is one reason why it is currently receiving the largest sustained increase in funding in its history. PCTs will be able to use these extra resources to deliver on both national and local priorities, includingas they determineservices for children with life-threatening illnesses. As I said to my hon. Friend, there are no restrictions on possible funding for children's hospices; it is for individual hospices to negotiate funding with the PCTs that they serve. That is why I do not believe that a centrally imposed hospice funding formula or a general uplift in funding for children's hospices is the right action to take. In some areas, PCTs might want to guarantee the lion's share of funding to the local hospice. In others, however, they might not want to make any guarantees, but instead to buy occupancy only as and when needed.

Jeff Ennis: I have been listening closely to the many telling points that the Minister is making about this emotive and complicated issue. Does he agree that this negotiation modelit has arisen from discussions between communities and PCTs, and I fully support itis more likely to prove successful for adult hospices that have to negotiate with a maximum of three different PCTs, given the defined area that they cover? Children's hospices, however, will have to get involved in mass negotiation with up to 27 different PCTs, as I have pointed out. Surely the Minister can see that the sheer volume of such an exercise will create problems, and that it will be very difficult for children's hospices to find their way through that negotiation maze.
	We are talking about a new funding structure for adult and children's hospices that involves PCTs. I understand the Minister's argument about not wanting to provide a certain level of core funding for children's hospices, but can he guarantee to me now that under the new formula and the new negotiation structure, current NHS funding for children's hospices, which stands at less than 5 per cent., will be increased massively, so that they will have not only a short-term but a long-term future?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a lengthy intervention.

Stephen Ladyman: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the guarantee that he seeks. I can give him the guaranteeI believe that it is the duty of any Health Minister to give itthat every child who needs palliative care will receive it. We have to make a judgment on the needs of the individual child, irrespective of whether the care is delivered in the hospice movement, in hospital, at home or in any other environment. What primary care trusts must do is ensure that they have a framework in place whereby they can guarantee that every child in the area will receive the individualised palliative care that is necessary. As I said, whether or not that happens through the hospice movement is a matter for the PCT to decide.
	I can guarantee for my hon. Friend that we have described what the palliative care should look like, and I shall say a little more about that in a few moments. Once the national service framework is implemented, I guarantee that every child will get palliative care as required. The Government are committed to maintaining that if we continue to be responsible for these matters. We can give this guarantee: every child will get the palliative care, because we will implement the NSF for children. Whether that translates into a general uplift of funding for the hospice movement, however, is not a guarantee that I can offer. It may well do, but I cannot guarantee it. My guarantee applies to the outcomes and relates to the quality of life and health of our children.
	As to the negotiations, I recognise what my hon. Friend said about the problem of engaging with multiple PCTs, but I can suggest two mechanisms to help resolve it. First, in many areas within a strategic health authority, the PCTsthey are used to commissioning specialist services that cross many boundarieswill often appoint one PCT as the lead negotiator.
	Secondly, I can suggest a new mechanism. It has not been used in connection with children's palliative care, but there is no reason why it cannot. My hon. Friend will know that the Government introduced the Children Act 2004, under which a director of children's services has a duty to examine services for children across an entire local authority area. One of those duties is to co-operate with PCTs in developing plans for children's services. It applies vice-versa, as PCTs have a duty to co-operate with the director of children's services. If such a director believes that there are gaps in the palliative care provision in the local area, he may instruct PCTs to deal with the gap in their local delivery plans. That could lead to increased support for a local hospice movement and the PCT could even decide that the most practical person to lead the negotiations with the local hospice movement is the new director. The mechanism has not yet been used because the directors are only just being appointed, but there is no reason why it cannot.
	For all those reasons, I do not believe that a centrally imposed formula for hospice funding or a general uplift is the right way forward. Nor, in my view, could an uplift in funding be based on some predetermined linkage to adult hospices or a pre-set percentage of hospice running costs, rather than on allowing the level of NHS funding to be determined by the NHS commissioning arrangements.
	I share my hon. Friend's desire to see the children's hospice movement succeed, but I cannot agree with centrally designed solutions. Children's palliative care needs to go far beyond centrally imposed solutions. A primary care trust could not be expected to ensure a proper balance of provision or full availability of home care in the area if it were told that, irrespective of what it needs, it must fund an arbitrary proportion of hospice costs even though it had no strategic role in planning those hospices or commissioning their services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough has to remember that the money all comes out of the same pot. If we insist that more money goes into the hospice movement, there will be less left in the pot for other forms of children's palliative care.
	Directing PCTs to fund hospices by some given percentage would unbalance the essential mix of care. Favouring hospice care over home care could diminish the latter. We would also be acting as if we were more aware of the changing dynamics of local demand than PCTs, and that is not the case.
	That does not mean that the centre is without a role in securing the right level of hospice services. That is why, in September 2004, we launched the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services. It includes a module focused on support for the disabled child, with a section specifically setting out our vision for palliative care and the support of children with life-threatening illness. It clearly identifies that high-quality palliative care services should be available for all children and young people who need them.
	The NSF notes that palliative care services are provided by a network of agencies, including the NHS, children's hospices, the voluntary sector, and the social care and education services. Co-ordination and close liaison between agencies is therefore essential. It also notes the importance that we attach to recognising the changing needs of young people receiving palliative care as they move through and on from children's services.
	The NSF makes it clear that local authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts are to ensure that palliative care services provide high-quality, sensitive support that takes account of the physical, emotional and practical needs of children or young people, and their families, including siblings. Services must be sensitive to the cultural and spiritual needs of the child, young person and family. Services must also maximise choice, independence and creativity to promote quality of life, and they must be delivered where the child and family wantin the home, hospital, hospice, or other setting. Services must include the prompt availability of equipment to support care, access to appropriate translation services, and workers skilled in using communication aids.
	Palliative and terminal care services must be regularly reviewed with parents or carers, children and young people, and gaps in provision identified and addressed. Short-term breaks, palliative and community health services and social care services for children and young people with life-limiting conditions and/or complex health needs must be planned in partnership with voluntary sector providers and children and young people's hospices, in those localities where they exist.
	All these basic standards are set out in the NSF and, as I said earlier, their achievement is mandatory for the NHS by 2014. To help in achieving this standard, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough that we will soon be publishing a practical guide to children's palliative care for PCTs, reinforcing the need to commission a range of services to meet the palliative care needs of local children. That is a new announcement, so my hon. Friend has achieved something this evening.
	In conclusion, I am mindful of the invaluable contribution that children's hospices make towards the needs of children and young people who have life-threatening illness. However, I firmly believe that they will be served best by a partnership between the NHS and voluntary sector organisations that continues to value the contribution that both sectors can make, and that funding and planning decisions are best made locally by people who know the local area.
	I suspect that I have still not convinced my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, but I have done my best, and that is all that I can do.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Seven o'clock.